State v. King
Citations
- 204 Conn. App. 1
Syllabus
Convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intox- icating liquor or drugs, and of previously having been convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, and sentenced pursuant to the statute (§ 14-227a (g)) that imposes enhanced penalties on a third time offender, the defendant appealed to this court. Specifically, he claimed that the trial court should not have sentenced him as a third time offender because the essential elements of the crime of driving while under the influence are not substantially the same in Connecticut and Florida, where he was con- victed in 2000 and 2006. Held: 1. The defendant cannot prevail on his claim that prior convictions under Florida's statute for driving while under the influence did not qualify as prior convictions for the same offense under § 14-227a (a) and, there- fore, he was entitled to be resentenced as a first time offender: a. Contrary to the defendant's claim, the trial court's application of the current revision of § 14-227a to the defendant's conduct, rather than the revision that was in existence at the time of his Florida convictions, did not violate the ex post facto clause; the court's application of the current revision did not enhance the defendant's punishment for his prior Florida convictions and did not punish him for conduct that was not criminal in Connecticut at the time he committed the Florida offenses; instead, the court, applying the statute as the legislature intended, merely enhanced his sentence for his current illegal conduct because it was considered more serious in light of his earlier offenses in Florida; more- over, on the basis of the statute's clear and unambiguous language, as well as precedent from this court, our Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court, the legislature intended that the applicable revi- sion of § 14-227a was the one under which the defendant was charged in this case. b. The ''operation'' ele
Judges: Bright; Lavine; Alexander
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Nichols v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1994-06-06· cited 832×
- Gryger v. BurkeSupreme Court· 1948-10-11· cited 726×
- Hartford Electric Supply Co. v. Allen-Bradley Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-08-24· cited 136×
- Stuart v. StuartSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-06-22· cited 82×
- State v. BurnsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-02-06· cited 75×
- State v. MattioliSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-04-04· cited 55×
- State v. ComminsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-12-20· cited 34×
- State v. SmithConnecticut Appellate Court· 2008-05-13· cited 31×
- State v. DucattConnecticut Appellate Court· 1990-06-19· cited 28×
- Griffin v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1984-07-18· cited 26×
- State v. HaightSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-08-22· cited 26×
- Northern Homes Distributors, Inc. v. GroschConnecticut Appellate Court· 1990-06-19· cited 24×
- State v. KnybelSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-03-20· cited 23×
- Fieselman v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1988-11-22· cited 18×
- State v. HollowaySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1957-03-05· cited 16×
- Hughes v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 2006-07-12· cited 13×
- State v. CyrSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-03-31· cited 13×
- State v. SmithConnecticut Appellate Court· 2018-02-20· cited 12×
- Baltrus v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1990-12-12· cited 9×
- State v. AdamsIdaho Court of Appeals· 2005-01-26· cited 9×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.