Opinion
AC 46871
12-26-2023
J. G. v. Jeremiah CURTIS-SHANLEY
Jeremiah Curtis-Shanley, self-represented, filed a brief as the appellant (defendant).
Jeremiah Curtis-Shanley, self-represented, filed a brief as the appellant (defendant). Moll, Seeley and Harper, Js.
PER CURIAM.
150The self-represented defendant, Jeremiah Curtis-Shanley, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the application for a civil protection order filed by the plaintiff, J. G., pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-16a. Because the defendant failed to show cause as to why his appeal should not be dismissed for his unilaterally terminating his attendance at oral argument, we dismiss the appeal.
The plaintiff did not file a brief or otherwise participate in the present appeal.
The record reflects the following facts and procedural history. On February 27, 2023, pursuant to § 46b-16a, the plaintiff filed an application for a civil protection order. In her application and the personal affidavit 151attached thereto, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was stalking her and causing her to fear for her safety. On that same day, the court, T. Welch J., issued an ex parte civil protection order. On March 8, 2023, the court, Hon. William Holden, judge trial referee, conducted an evidentiary hearing on the application. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court granted the application for protection. This appeal followed.
The plaintiff first filed an application for a civil protection order pursuant to § 46b-16a against the defendant on February 6, 2023. On that same day, the court, Reed, J., issued an ex parte protection order and scheduled an evidentiary hearing on the application for February 15, 2023. The plaintiff did not appear at the hearing. As a result, the court, Hon. William Holden, judge trial referee, rendered a judgment of dismissal pursuant to Practice Book § 14-3. The plaintiff subsequently filed the February 27, 2023 application, the granting of which underlies the present appeal.
On August 10, 2023, the court issued a memorandum of decision.
On September 28, 2023, the defendant requested permission to attend oral argument before this court from a remote location. On October 3, 2023, the court granted the defendant permission to appear remotely at oral argument, specifically, by video conference. When the defendant appeared at the scheduled argument on October 19, 2023, however, he connected from a remote location by way of audio only. Following what was the defendant's obvious falsehood to court staff concerning his ability to appear by video, as described in footnote 4 of this opinion, the court then opened the session, confirmed that the defendant was able to hear the court, and provided the defendant with a few preliminary instructions concerning, inter alia, safeguards to protect the identity of the protected party and the defendant's claims regarding his appearing by audio only. While the court was addressing the defendant, the defendant unilaterally terminated his attendance by ending the call. The defendant neither reappeared nor other-wise 152contacted the court as of the conclusion of the court's docket. Nor did the defendant submit, prior to the issuance of the order to show cause, any filing provid- ing an explanation for unilaterally terminating his attendance at oral argument.
The court stated in relevant part: "Mr. Curtis-Shanley, I understand from [Appellate Court staff] that, when you connected [for argument], you first requested that you wouldn't have to appear by video because you're not feeling well, and, when that request was denied, you indicated … that you don't have a video camera connected to your computer. So, assuming that that is true, I want to give you two options. The first is you can waive oral argument today, or alternatively, we can reschedule your matter to a future term of this court when you would be able to coordinate yourself such that you could appear by video. So, which option would you like to proceed with?" No response was given, and court staff indicated that the defendant had "hung up."
The court's staff unsuccessfully attempted to contact the defendant using the telephone number he provided on page one of his appellate brief. The court deemed the defendant's conduct to be a forfeiture of his right to oral argument.
On November 17, 2023, this court ordered the defendant to show cause as to why his appeal should not be dismissed as a result of his unilaterally terminating his attendance at oral argument. See Practice Book §§ 85-2 and 85-3; see also In re Shanice P., 64 Conn. App. 78, 79, 779 A.2d 151 (2001). In the show cause order, we required that the defendant "submit a response … on or before December 8, 2023." (Footnote omitted.) On December 8, 2023, the defendant filed a response, which we have considered. In light of the foregoing, pursuant to Practice Book §§ 85-2 and 85-3, we conclude that the sanction of dismissal is warranted. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal; the order of protection remains in full effect.
The appeal is dismissed.