Title: State v. Lopez
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC17618
State: Connecticut
Issuer: Connecticut Supreme Court
Date: April 3, 2007

******************************************************
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. ALBERT LOPEZ
(SC 17618)
Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Vertefeuille, Js.
Argued February 8—officially released April 3, 2007
Lisa J. Steele, special public defender, for the appel-
lant (defendant).
Susann E. Gill, senior assistant state’s attorney, with
whom, on the brief, were Jonathan C. Benedict, state’s
attorney, and Margaret E. Kelley, senior assistant
state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).
Opinion
PER CURIAM. The defendant, Albert Lopez, was con-
victed on charges of robbery in the first degree in viola-
tion of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (4),1 unlawful
restraint in the second degree in violation of General
Statutes § 53a-96 (a) and larceny in the sixth degree in
violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-119 and 53a-125b.
On the defendant’s appeal to the Appellate Court, the
majority of the court affirmed the judgment of convic-
tion. State v. Lopez, 93 Conn. App. 257, 274, 889 A.2d
254 (2006). We granted the defendant’s petition for certi-
fication to appeal limited to the following question:
‘‘Whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that
there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s ver-
dict convicting the defendant of robbery in the first
degree in violation of . . . § 53a-134 (a) (4)?’’2 State v.
Lopez, 277 Conn. 919, 919–20, 895 A.2d 791 (2006). We
affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the
following facts and procedural history. ‘‘At approxi-
mately 10 p.m. on December 9, 2003, the victim, Cecile
Lawrence, a University of Bridgeport security officer,
was walking to her place of employment via Park Ave-
nue. The weather was cold, and the victim wore a winter
coat over her uniform. As she crossed Atlantic Street,
she heard someone approaching from behind. She
turned and saw two men, whom she subsequently iden-
tified as [a codefendant, Clifton E.] Kennedy and Lopez.
Kennedy ordered the victim to give him her money or
he would ‘do [her].’ The victim described Kennedy as
being very upset. He repeatedly threatened her by stat-
ing, ‘[G]ive me your money or I’ll do you right here.’
The victim told Kennedy that she had no money, but
he persisted, stating that he knew that she had money.
The victim was afraid that she would be shot. She per-
ceived an odor of alcohol on Kennedy and Lopez and
believed that both men had been drinking.
‘‘The victim was wearing a backpack. Kennedy pulled
on the backpack forcing the shoulder straps to draw
the victim’s arms behind her. This permitted Lopez to
unzip the victim’s coat, rummage through her outer and
inner coat pockets and the pocket of her shirt. Lopez
removed the victim’s keys, reading glasses and identifi-
cation. Kennedy continued to threaten the victim by
stating that he would ‘do [her]’ then if she did not give
them her money. Lopez informed him, however, that
the victim did not have any money and told Kennedy
not to ‘do her.’ Kennedy and Lopez took the victim’s
backpack with its contents and told the victim to walk
away and not to look back. As the victim walked away,
Kennedy again threatened her, stating, ‘Do not turn
around or I’ll do you.’
‘‘The victim walked to the campus security office,
which was about one and one-half blocks away. She
met her supervisor, Jermaine Alston, who was operating
a campus security vehicle, and informed him that she
had been mugged. Alston told the victim to get into the
vehicle, and they drove around the area looking for the
perpetrators of the robbery. The victim described the
perpetrators as a black man and a Hispanic man. Alston
and the victim saw two men going through a backpack
on Atlantic Street. The victim recognized them as the
men who had robbed her. Alston stopped the vehicle
and got out. Kennedy ran away. Lopez began to walk
away, refusing to answer Alston’s question about where
he had gotten the backpack. Alston scuffled with Lopez
and subdued him until the police arrived and took Lopez
into custody. Kennedy was apprehended by the police
a few blocks from the scene.
‘‘Most of the victim’s belongings were recovered,
except her cellular telephone, which was valued at
approximately $200. After Kennedy and Lopez were
taken into custody, the victim identified them as the
men who had robbed her. She also identified them in
court. Alston identified Lopez in court, as well, but he
could not identify Kennedy.
‘‘Both defendants were charged with robbery in the
first degree, unlawful restraint in the second degree
and larceny in the sixth degree. Their cases were consol-
idated for trial on June 16, 2004. The jury returned
verdicts of guilty on October 6, 2004. Each of the defen-
dants received a total effective sentence of eleven years
in the custody of the commissioner of correction and
three years of probation.’’ State v. Lopez, supra, 93
Conn. App. 260–61.
Lopez claimed on appeal to the Appellate Court that
there was insufficient evidence to support his convic-
tion of robbery in the first degree.3 Id., 259. He argued
that the meaning of the words ‘‘ ‘do you’ ’’ is too vague to
be construed as a threat to shoot the victim, particularly
when there was no evidence that either defendant had
a firearm. Id., 263. In a divided opinion, the Appellate
Court rejected this claim. Id., 263–67. This certified
appeal followed.
After examining the record on appeal and fully con-
sidering the briefs and arguments of the parties, we
conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court
should be affirmed. The thoughtful and comprehensive
majority opinion of the Appellate Court properly
resolved the issue in this certified appeal. Further dis-
cussion by this court would serve no useful purpose.
See, e.g., State v. Butler, 255 Conn. 828, 830, 769 A.2d
697 (2001).
The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.
1 We note that the judgment file identifies the defendant’s conviction under
§ 53a-134 (a) (2), which we attribute to a scrivener’s error.
2 General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) provides in relevant part: ‘‘A person is
guilty of robbery in the first degree when, in the course of the commission
of the crime of robbery as defined in section 53a-133 or of immediate flight
therefrom, he or another participant in the crime . . . (4) displays or threat-
ens the use of what he represents by his words or conduct to be a pistol,
revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm . . . .’’
3 Lopez also claimed that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his
conviction of unlawful restraint in the second degree; State v. Lopez, supra,
93 Conn. App. 267; that his conviction of robbery in the first degree and
unlawful restraint in the second degree violated the constitutional prohibi-
tion against double jeopardy; id., 271; and that the trial court improperly
denied his motion for a mistrial. Id., 269. The Appellate Court rejected those
claims; id., 267–74; and those rulings are not at issue in this certified appeal.