State v. Schimanski
Citations
- 344 Conn. 435
Syllabus
Pursuant to statute ((Rev. to 2017) § 14-227b (i) (1)), the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles shall suspend, for a period of forty-five days, the motor vehicle operator's license of a person against whom a decision was issued concerning, inter alia, a refusal to submit to a blood, breath or urine test to determine sobriety, and, as a condition for the restoration of that license, ''such person shall be required to install an ignition interlock device on each motor vehicle owned or operated by such person and, upon such restoration, be prohibited from operating a motor vehicle unless such motor vehicle is equipped with a functioning, approved ignition interlock device'' for a specified period of time. Convicted, on a conditional plea of nolo contendere, of the crime of operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license in violation of the applicable § 36-18, this does not support an inference that the trial court offered the defendant a continuance to help the state prove that its amendment would not prejudice the defendant's substantive rights. Here, the trial court deter- mined that the state had good cause to amend its information and that no additional or different offense was charged. Although the trial court did not make an explicit finding that the amendment would not prejudice the defendant's substantive rights, we presume that it made this finding by virtue of the fact that it allowed the state to amend its information and a conclusion that the amendment would not prejudice the defendant's substan- tive rights is essential to permitting the state to amend its information. See, e.g., DiBerardino v. DiBerardino, 213 Conn. 373, 385, 568 A.2d 431 (1990). Although the trial court offered the defendant a continuance—in the midst of its consideration of the requirements set forth in § 36-18—its decision to grant the defendant a continuance was separate from the trial court's distinct inquiry as to whether the state could amend its information after the start of trial.
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.