State v. Grayson

Full title: STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. EDWARD GRAYSON, JR

Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Jan 22, 1985

485 A.2d 921 (Conn. 1985)

485 A.2d 921

Opinion

(11982)

The defendant's appeal from the denial of his motion for accelerated rehabilitation was dismissed; that ruling was not appealable.

(One judge dissenting)

Argued December 4, 1984

Decision released January 22, 1985

Information charging the defendant with the crimes of disorderly conduct and possession of cocaine with intent to sell, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven where, On remand from the Supreme Court for further articulation, the court, Sullivan, J., affirmed the denial of the defendant's application for accelerated rehabilitation, from which the defendant appealed. Appeal dismissed.

The appellant filed a motion for reargument which was denied.

Sue L. Wise, with whom, on the brief, were Joseph Bruckmann and Elizabeth Inkster, for the appellant (defendant).

David S. Shepack, deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief were John Waddock and Carl Schuman, assistant state's attorneys, for the appellee (state).

PER CURIAM.

This case involves an appeal from a denial, allegedly without a hearing, of a motion for accelerated rehabilitation. Since the non appealability of this ruling is governed by our decisions in State v. Parker, 194 Conn. 650, 485 A.2d 139 (1984), and State v. Spendolini, 189 Conn. 92, 454 A.2d 720 (1983), no further explication is necessary.

ARTHUR H. HEALEY, J., dissenting.

Because I adhere to the analysis articulated by the dissent in State v. Spendolini, 189 Conn. 92, 100-101, 456 A.2d 720 (1983) (appeal from denial of defendant's motion to enter accelerated rehabilitation program), I dissent.