*********************************************** 

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. 

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 Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 

*********************************************** 
STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JAVIER

VALENTIN PORFIL

(SC 20379)

Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria,

Kahn, Ecker and Keller, Js.

Argued October 13, 2020—officially released April 30, 2021*

Procedural History

Substitute information charging the defendant with

the crimes of possession of narcotics with intent to sell

by a person who is not drug-dependent, sale of narcotics

within 1500 feet of a school, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of narcotics and interfering with

an officer, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial

district of Waterbury, geographical area number four,

and tried to the jury before Harmon, J.; verdict and

judgment of guilty, from which the defendant appealed

to the Appellate Court, Prescott, Elgo and Harper, Js.,

which affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and the

defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to

this court. Appeal dismissed.

James B. Streeto, senior assistant public defender,

for the appellant (defendant).

Laurie N. Feldman, deputy assistant state’s attorney,

with whom, on the brief, were Maureen Platt, state’s

attorney, and David A. Gulick, senior assistant state’s

attorney, for the appellee (state).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The defendant, Javier Valentin Porfil,

appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification,1

from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which

affirmed his conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of

possession of narcotics with intent to sell by a person

who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 21a-278 (b), sale of narcotics within

1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes

§ 21a-278a (b), possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of General Statutes § 21a-267, possession of narcotics in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2015)

§ 21a-279 (a), and interfering with an officer in violation

of General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 53a-167a. State v.

Porfil, 191 Conn. App. 494, 497–98, 215 A.3d 161 (2019).

On appeal, the defendant challenges the Appellate

Court’s conclusion that the evidence adduced at trial

was sufficient to support his conviction of possession

of narcotics with intent to sell by a person who is not

drug-dependent and possession of narcotics because

the state produced sufficient evidence to prove beyond

a reasonable doubt that he had constructive possession

of the narcotics recovered by the police from a building

located at 126-128 Walnut Street in Waterbury. The defendant contends, specifically, that, because ‘‘the [narcotics] were found [on] the second floor landing of a stairway in a common portion of a multiunit apartment

building,’’ and because there was no evidence of a

‘‘direct connection, or ‘nexus,’ individually linking [him]

to the contraband,’’ the Appellate Court incorrectly

determined that there was sufficient evidence for the

jury to find that the defendant was aware of the narcotics’ presence and that he exercised dominion and control over the narcotics.

After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties,

we have determined that the appeal should be dismissed

on the ground that certification was improvidently

granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

* April 30, 2021, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion,

is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes.

1 We granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal, limited

to the following issue: ‘‘Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the

evidence of constructive possession was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s

conviction of possession of narcotics and possession of narcotics with intent

to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent, when the narcotics that

formed the basis for the conviction were found in a common area over

which the defendant did not have exclusive possession?’’ State v. Porfil,

333 Conn. 923, 923–24, 218 A.3d 67 (2019).