Opinion
(11592)
Argued March 21, 1994
Decision released May 24, 1994
Substitute information charging the defendant with the crime of possession of heroin with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, where the court, Spada, J., denied the defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence; thereafter, the case was tried to the court; judgment of guilty, from which the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Kent Drager, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Mary H. Lesser, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were James E. Thomas, state's attorney, Paul E. Murray, assistant state's attorney, and James Somers, law student intern, for the appellee (state).
The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction of a charge of possession of narcotics with the intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes 21a-278 (b). The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court, in an oral decision from the bench, denied the defendant's motion to suppress. The defendant elected to waive her right to a jury trial. After the bench trial, the trial court found the defendant guilty. The defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of ten years, suspended after five years, with five years probation with special conditions. This appeal followed.
The hearing was a joint evidentiary hearing, involving the defendant and Jose Vargas, a codefendant.
The defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) found that the defendant did not have standing to contest the legality of the police actions, (2) found that the defendant had consented to undercover Detective Anthony Battistone's entry into the apartment, (3) applied the doctrine of inevitable discovery, and (4) failed to resolve the factual dispute as to whether Battistone signaled the undercover team before or after he saw the narcotics. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Issues two, three and four are the identical issues addressed in State v. Vargas, 34 Conn. App. 492, 642 A.2d 47 (1994). See that decision for our resolution of those issues.
The facts are set forth in the companion case of State v. Vargas, 34 Conn. App. 492, 642 A.2d 47 (1994). Because we held in State v. Vargas, supra, 492, that the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress evidence was not improper, we need not address the defendant's claim that the trial court improperly found that she did not have standing to challenge the search and seizure.