State v. Cicarella

203 Conn.App. 811

251 A.3d 94

STATE of Connecticut

v.James J. CICARELLA

AC 42788

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued January 19, 2021

Officially released April 13, 2021

David V. DeRosa, Naugatuck, for the appellant (defendant).

Timothy J. Sugrue, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Patrick J. Griffin, state's attorney, and Michael R. Denison, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Prescott, Moll and Alexander, Js.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, James J. Cicarella, appeals from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court following his conditional plea of nolo contendere¹ to larceny in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-122 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Practice Book § 41-8 (1)² in which he claimed that the Madison Police Department did not have jurisdiction to investigate and arrest him because the alleged crime occurred in Wallingford. The state disagrees and, in addition, contends that the appeal is moot. The state argues that the defendant failed to challenge all of the bases for denying the motion set forth in the court's memorandum of decision. We agree with the state, and, because we cannot afford the defendant any practical relief, we dismiss his appeal as moot.

The following facts, as set forth in the trial court's memorandum of decision, and procedural history are necessary for the resolution of this appeal. In an affidavit attached to an application for an arrest warrant, Christopher Sudock, a Madison police officer, asserted that the defendant, a resident of Madison, participated in a fraudulent scheme resulting in the theft of $578,466 from the victim, Dorothy Minervino. Specifically, the defendant, who had performed maintenance at the victim's residence in Wallingford, falsely informed her that he had been diagnosed with a life-threatening illness. At the defendant's request, the victim agreed to give the defendant money to pay for his medical insurance and purported medical procedures. The victim deposited $535,000 into a joint bank account that she had opened with the defendant, with the understanding that the money would be used for these medical expenses. She also deposited $43,000 into the defendant's personal account for that same purpose.

Sudock's affidavit further alleged that the defendant withdrew funds from these accounts and falsely represented to the victim that the money had been used for his medical expenses. The defendant instead used the money to purchase, inter alia, a house in Madison. The defendant was charged with larceny in the first degree, and an arrest warrant was issued on August 1, 2016.

On December 17, 2018, the defendant moved to dismiss the information, arguing that the prosecution had been instituted improperly. The defendant claimed that "the crime(s) alleged in the warrant submitted by the Madison Police Department and the state's long form information were committed in another jurisdiction, Wallingford. Consequently, the defendant was not properly under the jurisdiction of the Madison Police Department inasmuch as no crime has been alleged to have been committed in Madison and as a result, the court does not have jurisdiction." The state countered that larceny constituted a continuing crime and that the subsequent involvement of, and the steps taken by, the state's attorney's office rendered the arrest and prosecution of the defendant proper.

The court, Alander, J. , held a hearing on January 8, 2019, and issued a memorandum of decision two days later. In denying the defendant's motion to dismiss, the court set forth two bases for its decision. First, the court, citing State v. Benson , 153 Conn. 209, 218, 214 A.2d 903 (1965), agreed with the state's argument that larceny constituted a continuing crime and rejected the defendant's efforts to draw a distinction between the theft of physical property and that of money. Second, citing State v. Fleming , 198 Conn. 255, 262–63, 502 A.2d 886, cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143, 106 S. Ct. 1797, 90 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1986), the court determined that "[a]ny investigation by the Madison police of a crime committed outside their municipality does not invalidate the defendant's prosecution."

On January 16, 2019, the defendant entered a conditional plea of nolo contendere to the charge of larceny in the first degree, which the court, Clifford, J ., accepted. Pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a, the court concluded that a ruling in the defendant's favor on the motion to dismiss would be dispositive of the case. See generally State v. Cervantes , 172 Conn. App. 74, 78, 158 A.3d 430, cert. denied, 325 Conn. 927, 169 A.3d 231 (2017). On April 2, 2019, the court imposed a sentence of twelve years of incarceration, execution suspended after six years, and five years of probation. This appeal followed.

On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion to dismiss the information charging him with the crime of larceny in the first degree. In support of this claim, he first contends that the municipal police generally may operate only within "their territorial jurisdiction." The defendant then argues that the court improperly concluded that the larceny of money, as compared to that of "physical personal property," constituted a continuing crime.³ As a second argument, the defendant maintains that "[t]he Wallingford police and not the Madison police are the only authority that have the power to arrest the defendant." Finally, his brief concludes with various policy arguments as to why we should reverse the decision of the trial court denying his motion to dismiss.

Absent from the defendant's appellate brief, however, is a challenge to the second basis relied on by the trial court in denying the motion to dismiss, namely, that, pursuant to State v. Fleming , supra, 198 Conn. 255, 502 A.2d 886, an illegal arrest does not invalidate his prosecution and subsequent conviction. In Fleming , our Supreme Court stated: "The relationship between an illegal arrest and a subsequent prosecution under federal constitutional law is well settled. In an unbroken line of cases dating back to 1886, the federal rule has been that an illegal arrest will not bar a subsequent prosecution or void a resulting conviction." Id., at 259, 502 A.2d 886 ; see also State v. Johnson , 227 Conn. 534, 539–40, 630 A.2d 1059 (1993) ; State v. Bagnaschi , 180 Conn. App. 835, 857, 184 A.3d 1234, cert. denied, 329 Conn. 912, 186 A.3d 1170 (2018).⁴ The defendant's failure to challenge this independent basis for the denial of his motion to dismiss renders his appeal moot, as we cannot afford him any practical relief.

"Mootness is a question of justiciability that must be determined as a threshold matter because it implicates [this] court's subject matter jurisdiction .... The fundamental principles underpinning the mootness doctrine are well settled. We begin with the four part test for justiciability .... Because courts are established to resolve actual controversies, before a claimed controversy is entitled to a resolution on the merits it must be justiciable. Justiciability requires (1) that there be an actual controversy between or among the parties to the dispute ... (2) that the interests of the parties be adverse ... (3) that the matter in controversy be capable of being adjudicated by the judicial power ... and (4) that the determination of the controversy will result in practical relief to the complainant. ...

"[I]t is not the province of appellate courts to decide moot questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief or from the determination of which no practical relief can follow. ... In determining mootness, the dispositive question is whether a successful appeal would benefit the plaintiff or defendant in any way. ...

"Where an appellant fails to challenge all bases for a trial court's adverse ruling on his claim, even if this court were to agree with the appellant on the issues that he does raise, we still would not be able to provide [him] any relief in light of the binding adverse finding[s] [not raised] with respect to those claims. ... Therefore, when an appellant challenges a trial court's adverse ruling, but does not challenge all independent bases for that ruling, the appeal is moot." (Citations omitted; emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lester , 324 Conn. 519, 526–27, 153 A.3d 647 (2017) ; see also Sobel v. Commissioner of Revenue Services , 333 Conn. 712, 716–17, 218 A.3d 581 (2019) ; In re Phoenix A. , 202 Conn. App. 827, 838–40, ––– A.3d –––– (2021) ; State v. Carter , 194 Conn. App. 202, 206–208, 220 A.3d 882 (2019) ; State v....