State v. Roberts

312 A.3d 1086

224 Conn.App. 471

STATE of Connecticut

v.Brandon ROBERTS

(AC 46906)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued November 15, 2023

Officially Released April 2, 2024

Lisa J. Steele, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).

James A. Killen, senior assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Joseph T. Corradino, state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

Elgo, Moll and Keller, Js.

KELLER, J.

₄₇₃The defendant, Brandon Roberts, appeals ¹ from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 29-35 (a).² The ₄₇₄defendant claims that his conviction for this offense should be vacated "[i]n light of" the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 213 L. Ed. 2d 387 (2022).³ Specifically, he argues that the firearm permitting laws in Connecticut place on him an unconstitutional burden that violates his right to bear arms under the second amendment to the United States constitution⁴ and subject him to disparate treatment as a non-Connecticut resident (nonresident), in violation of the privileges and immunities clause set forth in article four, § 2, clause 1 of the United States constitution.⁵

Both of the defendant’s claims find their genesis in General Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 29-28,⁶ which, as of the date of the commission of the crime, set the parameters for how and to whom a pistol permit required by § 29-35 (a) was to be issued. Section 29-28 (b) governs how permits are issued to Connecticut residents,⁷ and ₄₇₅§ 29-28 (f) governs how permits are issued to nonresidents.⁸ The defendant claims that he was a resident of the state of Ohio in 2018 when he shot and killed the twenty-five year old victim⁹ in Connecticut with a pistol for which he did not have a Connecticut permit. He claims, therefore, that he could not have applied for or obtained a permit as a bona fide permanent Connecticut resident pursuant to § 29-28 (b). He further claims that he could not have applied for or obtained a permit as a nonresident pursuant to § 29-28 (f) because that section provides in relevant part that a nonresident "who has a permit or license to carry a pistol or revolver issued by the authority of another state or subdivision of the United States, may apply directly to the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection for a permit to carry a pistol or revolver in this state," and he did not have a permit from Ohio because he was not required to have one there. Although he acknowledges that Ohio did issue permits, and in fact required ₄₇₆them under some circumstances in 2018, he questions why he should be required to obtain an "optional" or "otherwise unnecessary" permit from Ohio in order to procure a nonresident permit in Connecticut. The defendant argues that punishing him for carrying a pistol without a permit under these circumstances infringes on his federal constitutional rights.¹⁰ We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts, which the jury reasonably could have found from the largely undisputed evidence admitted at trial, and procedural history are relevant to our review of the defendant’s claims. During the evening hours of December 8, 2018, at a secluded portion of a beach near 365 Seaview Avenue in Bridgeport, the defendant¹¹ took a Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistol from his waistband and shot the victim in the back of her head, killing her. The defendant did not have a permit to carry a pistol in Connecticut, nor had he ever applied for one.

The defendant grew up in Bridgeport, attended and graduated from high school in Ansonia, and had intended to go to college in Ohio, where he was living with his father in 2018. On November 15, 2018, the defendant purchased a Smith & Wesson semiautomatic pistol from the Gold Star Pawn Shop, LLC, in Eastlake, Ohio. He left from there and drove to Connecticut, where he had plans to spend the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday with his family in the state. He had with him both the Smith & Wesson pistol he had just purchased and a .45 caliber semiautomatic Taurus pistol he had purchased from the same shop in Ohio on ₄₇₇November 7, 2018, eight days earlier. The defendant testified that he brought the Smith & Wesson pistol with him "for protection to be out here …. " As he explained in his statement to the police, he had once been shot and injured in Bridgeport. He also testified that he brought the Taurus pistol with him to sell in Connecticut, which he ultimately did, "to somebody on the street …." In fact, the defendant admitted during cross-examination that he "came to Connecticut with the intention of committing a crime of selling a firearm on the street."

The defendant became acquainted with the victim after he arrived in Connecticut. He connected with her through an online dating application called "Plenty of Fish." They met in person for the first time on November 20, 2018, and started a relationship. After that meeting, the victim sent the defendant a text message asking him to "explain to me why you’re here if you actually live here or if you’re visiting that’s all." The defendant responded: "And I told you this last night. I plan on living here. I jus came out here."

The victim’s mother testified that the victim "[fell] hard" for the defendant and immediately considered him her boyfriend. The victim gave the defendant money when he asked for it, let him use her car, and even tried to convince her mother to let him stay with her in her bedroom at her parents’ house in Bethel, where she lived with her parents and her brother. The defendant and the victim had unprotected sexual relations on several occasions, and they discussed the possibility that the victim might have become pregnant.

The defendant admitted that he was in constant need of money and that the victim had been particularly generous with hers.¹² The victim routinely gave the ₄₇₈defendant money for gas and food. She also gave the defendant money to repair his car, which, as he explained to her in a text message, he "ha[d] to find a way to get … up and ready so I can get a job! Delivery jobs are everywhere." After the defendant sent the victim a text message on December 6, 2018, asking for "help" with his car, as he had an interview the next day, she gave him approximately $250.¹³ The victim also shared with the defendant the PIN for her ATM card and told him, in a December 6, 2018 text message, that she had $1200 in her bank account.¹⁴

During his testimony at trial, the defendant described the brief relationship he had with the victim as an "iffy situation, iffy as in one minute [the victim] wants to continue the relationship, the next minute [the victim] wants to break it off …. " The victim’s family did not approve of the relationship and the victim felt "stuck." The defendant "was getting tired of the iffy situation" and felt that the victim was "playing with [his] emotions." On December 7, 2018, he told her in a series of text messages that a "hot moment has an cold ending" and that "you really push me to the point where I stop giving chances."

On December 8, 2018, the victim sent a text message to the defendant stating that she and the defendant ₄₇₉should just be friends. The defendant sent a text message in response asking if they could "hang one last time?" He told her that he wanted the victim to meet him so "we can discuss things in person and I can tell you how I feel. We can park up by the sand and water and discuss some real shit." The victim agreed. They met, as "per usual," at the hotel in Stratford, where the defendant had been staying with his uncle, Bradford Belcher.¹⁵ They drove in the victim’s car to a Dunkin Donuts and then, at the defendant’s suggestion, to the beach by the boat ramp on Seaview Avenue in Bridgeport. After they got out of the car and walked onto the beach and up to the water, the defendant pulled his Smith & Wesson pistol out of the waistband of his pants and shot the victim in the back of her head. The defendant then took the victim's belongings, including her cell phone and her ATM card, left in the victim’s car, drove to a nearby ATM and withdrew $450 from the victim’s bank account. He realized after doing so that there was still money left in the victim’s account, so he drove in the victim’s car to a nearby market that had an ATM inside and withdrew an additional $50 from the victim’s bank account.¹⁶ The defendant then discarded the victim’s cell phone on the side of the highway and drove to a New York rest area where he slept in the victim’s car.

The following morning, the defendant drove the victim’s car back to the hotel in Stratford, left it there, and picked up his own car. He then drove to his father’s home in Ohio. A few days later, he went to a corner store in Cleveland, Ohio, and sold the Smith & Wesson pistol to someone there.¹⁷ Before he sold the murder ₄₈₀weapon, he had it with him "[i]n the car, in the apartment, wherever [he] went." The defendant was subsequently apprehended at his father’s home in Ohio and brought back to Connecticut, where he was arrested and charged with, among other things, carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of § 29-35 (a). See footnote 2 of this opinion.

During its case-in-chief at trial, the state presented one witness who testified about the defendant’s pistol purchases in Ohio and three witnesses who testified about the defendant’s violation of § 29-35 (a). Anthony Zaffiro was the owner of the Gold Star Pawn Shop, LLC, in Eastlake, Ohio, where the defendant purchased the two firearms he brought with him to Connecticut. Zaffiro is also a licensed federal firearms dealer. He explained the process applicable to the purchase of a firearm from a licensed federal firearms dealer in Ohio in 2018. First, the prospective purchaser was required to present a valid identification from the state of Ohio that...