Such a deviation from our rules of practice unnecessarily burdens an orderly appellate review. Cf. State v. Brown, 166 Conn. 203, 353 A.2d 721. The defendant did not dispute Coe's testimony that he had been beaten and robbed but did claim that Coe's identification was incorrect.
The improper manner in which counsel for the defendant, serving in his capacity as a special public defender, has prepared and presented this appeal prompts us once again to comment on his apparent inability or unwillingness to comply with even the basic rules of appellate procedure. See State v. Brown, 166 Conn. 203, 353 A.2d 721. The procedure used by counsel acting in his capacity as a special public defender places an undue burden on the appellee. It is an imposition on both the trial court and this court; it causes an unjustified expenditure of public funds and, by the delay which it inevitably causes, results in a disservice to the defendant whom counsel was appointed to represent.