Opinion
(SC 16623)
Argued January 6
Officially released February 18, 2003
Amended information charging the defendant with violation of the state building code, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Windham, geographical area number eleven, and tried to the jury before Foley, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty, from which the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, Lavery, C.J., and Foti and Hennessy, Js., which reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, and the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.
David K. Jaffe, for the appellant (defendant).
Denise B. Smoker, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Patricia M. Froehlich, state's attorney, Keith Currier, deputy assistant state's attorney, and Lonnie Braxton, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Opinion
The defendant, Steven Edelman, appeals, following our grant of certification to appeal, from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the trial court's judgment of conviction of violating the state building code, as prohibited by General Statutes (Rev. to 1997) § 29-263, and remanding the case for a new trial. State v. Edelman, 64 Conn. App. 480, 780 A.2d 980 (2001). We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: "Under the plain error doctrine, should the defendant's conviction be reversed and judgment directed in his favor, on the ground that there was no evidence that the defendant unlawfully continued to work under § 118.2 of the state building code?" State v. Edelman, 258 Conn. 940, 786 A.2d 427 (2001).
General Statutes (Rev. to 1997) § 29-263 provides in relevant part: "Except as provided in subsection (h) of section 29-252a, after October 1, 1970, no building or structure shall be constructed or altered until an application has been filed with the building official and a permit issued. . . ."
After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.