Case ID: conn_195/html/0069-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. Arthur H. Healey, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

State of Connecticut v. Edward Grayson, Jr.
    (11982)
    Peters, C. J., Healey, Parskey, Shea and Dannehy, Js.
    Argued December 4, 1984
    decision released January 22, 1985
    
      
      Sue L. Wise, with whom, on the brief, were Joseph Bruckmann and Elizabeth Inkster, for the appellant (defendant).
    
      DavidS. Shepack, deputy assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief were John Waddock and Carl Schuman, assistant state’s attorneys, for the appellee (state).
   Per Curiam.

This case involves an appeal from a denial, allegedly without a hearing, of a motion for accelerated rehabilitation. Since the nonappealability of this ruling is governed by our decisions in State v. Parker, 194 Conn. 650, 485 A.2d 139 (1984), and State v. Spendolini, 189 Conn. 92, 454 A.2d 720 (1983), no further explication is necessary.

Appeal dismissed.

In this opinion Peters, C. J., Parskey, Shea and Dannehy, Js., concurred.

Arthur H. Healey, J.,

dissenting. Because I adhere to the analysis articulated by the dissent in State v. Spendolini, 189 Conn. 92, 100-101, 456 A.2d 720 (1983) (appeal from denial of defendant’s motion to enter accelerated rehabilitation program), I dissent.