Opinion
(13435)
Argued March 1, 1989
Decision released March 21, 1989
Substitute information charging the defendant with the crimes of possession of a narcotic substance and possession of a narcotic substance with intent to sell, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Danbury, geographical area number three, where the court, W. Sullivan, J., denied the defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence; thereafter, the case was presented to the court on a conditional plea of nolo contendere; judgment of guilty, from which the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, Borden, Spallone and Norcott, Js., which found no error in the trial court's decision, and the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Brian M. O'Connell, for the appellant (defendant).
Harry Weller, deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Walter D. Flanagan, state's attorney, and Robert C. Brunetti, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
The defendant, James Leonard, entered a conditional plea of nolo contendere to the charge of possession of narcotics (cocaine) with intent to sell, in violation of General Statutes 21a-277 (a). The Appellate Court found no error in the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress evidence. State v. Leonard, 14 Conn. App. 134, 539 A.2d 1030 (1988). We then granted the defendant's petition for certification, limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court err in sustaining the conclusion of the trial court at the hearing on the motion to suppress that there was sufficient evidence of probable cause under our federal and state constitutions to justify the police in making a warrantless search of the vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger and in arresting him as a result of that search?" State v. Leonard, 208 Conn. 807, 545 A.2d 1104 (1988).
After examining the record on appeal, and after considering the briefs and arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court must be affirmed. The issue on which we granted certification was properly resolved in the thoughtful and comprehensive opinion of the Appellate Court. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion therein contained.