Case ID: conn-app_52/html/0115-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. CLAYTON E. WHEAT
    (AC 18116)
    Lavery, Spear and Daly, Js.
    Argued January 26
    officially released March 2, 1999
    
      Allan F. Friedman, for the appellant (defendant).
    
      Harry Weller, senior assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Eugene J. Callahan, state’s attorney, mid Mitchell Rubin, assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).
   Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was convicted, after a trial to the court, of threatening in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62, and reckless endangerment in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-63. He claims that the trial court’s factual findings are not warranted and that its legal conclusions are incorrect. After reviewing the record we conclude that these claims are meritless. The trial court is the judge of the credibility of witnesses and its legal conclusions properly flowed from its factual findings. See State v. Leary, 51 Conn. App. 497, 503-504, 725 A.2d 328 (1999). “ ‘We do not examine the record to determine whether the trier of fact could have reached a conclusion other than the one reached . . . nor do we retry the case or pass upon the credibility of the witnesses.’ ” In re Tabitha T., 51 Conn. App. 595, 599, 722 A.2d 1232 (1999).

The judgment is affirmed.