Court Opinion

ID: 9896941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:04:23.008749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:29.978476
License: Public Domain

***********************************************
    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.