Title: State v. Robles

State: connecticut

Issuer: Connecticut Supreme Court

Document:

*********************************************** 
The “officially released” date that appears near the be-
ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-
lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 
released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-
ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions 
and petitions for certification is the “officially released” 
date appearing in the opinion. 
 
All opinions are subject to modification and technical 
correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut 
Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of 
discrepancies between the advance release version of an 
opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 
Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports 
or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to 
be considered authoritative. 
 
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the 
opinion as it appears 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 reproduced and distributed without the express written 
permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica-
tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 
*********************************************** 
STATE v. ROBLES—FIRST CONCURRENCE AND DISSENT
D’AURIA, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with part I of the majority opinion but respect-
fully dissent from part II. My dissent from part II of the
majority opinion is based on my agreement with two
parts of Justice Mullins’ concurring and dissenting opin-
ion. First, I agree with Justice Mullins that the record
fairly reflects the parties’ intent to submit the stipulation
in relation to both counts two and three and that the
trial court in fact admitted it for those purposes. Second,
I agree with Justice Mullins that the trial court properly
took judicial notice of General Statutes §§ 29-28 and
29-30 to support its determination that, in light of the
parties’ stipulation that the defendant, Ulises Robles,
had been convicted of two felonies in 2006, he could
not have had a proper permit for the gun that the trial
court found he possessed while occupying a motor vehi-
cle during the incident that led to his conviction. I there-
fore conclude that there was sufficient evidence to sup-
port the defendant’s conviction of possession of a weapon
in a motor vehicle in violation of General Statutes (Rev.
to 2017) § 29-38 (a). I would affirm the trial court’s
judgment in all respects and not reach the other issues
discussed in part II of both the majority opinion and
Justice Mullins’ concurring and dissenting opinion.