Opinion
(SC 16032)
Argued April 22
Officially released May 18, 1999
Substitute information, in the first case, charging the defendant with one count each of risk of injury to a child and unlawful restraint in the second degree, and information, in the second case, charging the defendant with violation of probation, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield, where the court, Ronan, J., granted the state's motion to consolidate the cases; thereafter, the first case was tried to the jury before Hartmere, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty of risk of injury to a child; subsequently, the second case was tried to the court, Hartmere, J.; judgment revoking the defendant's probation; thereafter, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, Lavery, Schaller and Spear, Js., which affirmed the judgments of the trial court, and the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.
James A. Shanley, Jr., special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Stephen J. Sedensky III, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Jonathan C. Benedict, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Opinion
After examining the 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.
We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court; State v. Tucker, 50 Conn. App. 506, 719 A.2d 1170 (1998); limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) § 53-21 was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant's conduct?" State v. Tucker, 247 Conn. 928, 719 A.2d 1170 (1998).