State v. King
Citations
- 346 Conn. 238
Syllabus
Pursuant to statute (§ 14-227a (a)), ''[a] person commits the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or both if such person operates a motor vehicle (1) while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or both, or (2) while such person has an elevated blood alcohol content.'' Pursuant further to statute (§ 14-227a (g)), any person who violates any provision of § 14-227a (a) shall be subject to sentence enhancement ''for conviction of a third and subsequent violation within ten years after a prior conviction for the same offense,'' and, ''[f]or purposes of the imposition of penalties for a . . . third and subsequent offense . . . a conviction in any other state of any offense the essential elements of which are determined by the court to be substantially the same as [those in § 14-227a (a) (1) or (2)] . . . shall constitute a prior conviction for the same offense.'' Convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intox- icating liquor or drugs in Connecticut, the defendant appealed. After the jury found the defendant guilty of operating a motor vehicle under the influence, the trial court found the defendant guilty of being a third time offender and enhanced his sentence under § 14-227a (g). The enhancement was based on the defendant's two prior Florida convictions 346 Conn. 238 FEBRUARY, 2023 239 State v. King under that state's driving under the influence statute (§ 316.193 (1)). In enhancing the sentence, the trial court determined that the elements of the Florida statute were ''substantially the same'' as the elements of § 14-227a (a) for purposes of § 14-227a (g). The Appellate Court upheld the judgment of conviction, and the defendant, on the granting of certifi- cation, appealed to this court, claiming that the Appellate Court incor- rectly had concluded that the elements of § 316.193 (1) were ''substantially the same'' as the elements of § 14-227a (a) for enhance- ment
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
38 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1931-12-11· cited 10,676×
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.Supreme Court· 1999-06-22· cited 1,876×
- Mingachos v. CBS, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-04-30· cited 1,640×
- State v. SalamonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-07-01· cited 243×
- Hartford Electric Supply Co. v. Allen-Bradley Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-08-24· cited 136×
- State v. BurnsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-02-06· cited 75×
- State v. MattioliSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-04-04· cited 55×
- State v. GoldsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1979-07-17· cited 50×
- McCoy v. Commissioner of Public SafetySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-01-05· cited 39×
- In re JohnstonNew York Court of Appeals· 1990-03-27· cited 37×
- State v. ComminsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-12-20· cited 34×
- State v. DucattConnecticut Appellate Court· 1990-06-19· cited 28×
- Fisette v. DiPietroConnecticut Appellate Court· 1992-07-28· cited 28×
- Griffin v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1984-07-18· cited 26×
- Fieselman v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1990-09-06· cited 26×
- State v. HaightSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-08-22· cited 26×
- Fieselman v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1988-11-22· cited 18×
- 777 Residential, LLC v. Metropolitan District CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-09-04· cited 18×
- State v. MartinSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1982-05-25· cited 17×
- Kuchta v. ArisianSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-07-24· cited 15×
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.