Case Title: State v. Edelman

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC16623

State: connecticut

Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

Date: 2003-02-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
******************************************************
The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the
beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will
be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the
date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative
date for the beginning of all time periods for filing
postopinion motions and petitions for certification is
the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion.
In no event will any such motions be accepted before
the ‘‘officially released’’ date.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the
event of discrepancies between the electronic version
of an opinion and the print version appearing in the
Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con-
necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the
latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying
the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official
Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service
and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes
of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of
the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro-
duced and distributed without the express written per-
mission
of
the
Commission
on
Official
Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
******************************************************
STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. STEVEN EDELMAN
(SC 16623)
Sullivan, C. J., Borden, Katz, Palmer and Vertefeuille, Js.
Argued January 6—officially released February 18, 2003
David K. Jaffe, for the appellant (defendant).
Denise B. Smoker, assistant state’s attorney, with
whom, on the brief, were Patricia M. Froehlich, state’s
attorney, Keith Currier, deputy assistant state’s attor-
ney, and Lonnie Braxton, assistant state’s attorney, for
the appellee (state).
Opinion
PER CURIAM. The defendant, Steven Edelman,
appeals, following our grant of certification to appeal,
from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the
trial court’s judgment of conviction of violating the state
building code, as prohibited by General Statutes (Rev.
to 1997) § 29-263,1 and remanding the case for a new
trial. State v. Edelman, 64 Conn. App. 480, 780 A.2d 980
(2001). We granted the defendant’s petition for certifica-
tion to appeal limited to the following issue: ‘‘Under
the plain error doctrine, should the defendant’s convic-
tion be reversed and judgment directed in his favor, on
the ground that there was no evidence that the defen-
dant unlawfully continued to work under § 118.2 of the
state building code?’’ State v. Edelman, 258 Conn. 940,
786 A.2d 427 (2001).
After examining the entire record on appeal and con-
sidering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties,
we have determined that the appeal in this case should
be dismissed on the ground that certification was
improvidently granted.
The appeal is dismissed.
1 General Statutes (Rev. to 1997) § 29-263 provides in relevant part:
‘‘Except as provided in subsection (h) of section 29-252a, after October 1,
1970, no building or structure shall be constructed or altered until an applica-
tion has been filed with the building official and a permit issued. . . .’’