Any challenge to that order is thus not properly before this court. See State v. Misenti , 112 Conn. App. 562, 563–64 n.1, 963 A.2d 696, cert. denied, 291 Conn. 904, 967 A.2d 1220 (2009). The court further found that it was not in the minor child's best interest to revoke the commitment.
Decided March 31, 2009 The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 112 Conn. App. 562 (AC 28872), is denied. Jeremy S. Donnelly, in support of the petition.
" State v. Santana , supra, at 468, 97 A.3d 963. Ordinarily, our appellate courts review claims that are functionally raised "only when a similar claim was raised in the trial court and the record was adequate to review the claim." State v. Misenti , 112 Conn. App. 562, 567, 963 A.2d 696, cert. denied, 291 Conn. 904, 967 A.2d 1220 (2009). In his reply brief, the plaintiff also suggests, for the first time, two alternative grounds for review of this nonconstitutional claim.
" State v. Santana, supra, 468. Ordinarily, our appellate courts review claims that are functionally raised "only when a similar claim was raised in the trial court and the record was adequate to review the claim." State v. Misenti, 112 Conn. App. 562, 567, 963 A.2d 696, cert. denied, 291 Conn. 904, 967 A.2d 1220 (2009). In his reply brief, the plaintiff also suggests, for the first time, two alternative grounds for review of this nonconstitutional claim.
Additionally, the record indicates that the court neither considered nor ruled on any provision of the UCC. Indeed, the record is wholly devoid of any reference, express or implied, to the UCC. Accordingly, we decline to review the defendants' unpreserved UCC claim. See State v. Misenti, 112 Conn.App. 562, 566, 963 A.2d 696, cert. denied, 291 Conn. 904, 967 A.2d 1220 (2009). The judgment is affirmed.
" (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Misenti, 112 Conn. App. 562, 567-68, 963 A.2d 696, cert. denied, 291 Conn. 904, 967 A.2d 1220 (2009). The defendant argues that the court's finding that he sold heroin to Coreano was clearly erroneous.
" (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Misenti, 112 Conn.App. 562, 566, 963 A.2d 696 (2009). In this case, the defendant also has failed to request review of this claim under State v. Golding,supra, 213 Conn. at 239-40, 567 A.2d 823, or the plain error doctrine.