State v. Gamer ( 2023 )

***********************************************
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 OF CONNECTICUT v.
CHARLES GAMER, JR.
(SC 20771)
Robinson, C. J., and D’Auria, Mullins, Ecker,
Alexander, Dannehy and Alvord, Js.
Argued October 20—officially released December 5, 2023
Procedural History
Information charging the defendant with violation of
probation, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial
district of Stamford-Norwalk, geographical area num-
ber twenty, where the case was tried to the court,
McLaughlin, J.; judgment revoking the defendant’s pro-
bation, from which the defendant appealed to the Appel-
late Court, Bright, C. J., and Moll and Pellegrino, Js.,
which affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and the defen-
dant, on the granting of certification, appealed to this
court. Appeal dismissed.
James B. Streeto, senior assistant public defender,
with whom, on the brief, was Meaghan Kirby, for the
appellant (defendant).
Laurie N. Feldman, assistant state’s attorney, with
whom, on the brief, were Suzanne M. Vieux, supervi-
sory assistant state’s attorney, and Elizabeth Moran,
former assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).
Opinion
PER CURIAM. The defendant, Charles Gamer, Jr.,
appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court,
which affirmed the judgment of the trial court revoking
his probation pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-32 and
sentencing him to three years of incarceration. See State
v. Gamer, 215 Conn. App. 234, 236–37, 249, 283 A.3d 16(2022). On appeal to the Appellate Court, the defendant
claimed that (1) there was insufficient evidence to sup-
port the trial court’s finding that he wilfully failed to
pay restitution, and (2) the trial court had abused its
discretion by imposing a term of imprisonment. Id., 236.
The Appellate Court rejected these claims, concluding
that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial
court’s finding that the defendant wilfully failed to make
restitution because he had not made bona fide efforts
to pay the restitution and that the trial court had not
abused its discretion in revoking his probation and
imposing a term of incarceration. See id., 236–37, 246–
47. We granted the defendant’s petition for certification
to appeal, limited to the following issues: (1) ‘‘Did the
Appellate Court err in failing to reverse the trial court’s
judgment revoking the defendant’s probation on the
ground that the evidence was insufficient to establish
that the defendant’s failure to pay restitution was wil-
ful?’’ And (2) ‘‘[d]id the Appellate Court correctly con-
clude that the trial court had not abused its discretion
in imposing a term of imprisonment for the defendant’s
violation of probation rather than some lesser sanc-
tion?’’ State v. Gamer, 345 Conn. 920, 284 A.3d 984(2022).
After examining the entire record on appeal and con-
sidering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we
have determined that the appeal should be dismissed on
the ground that certification was improvidently granted.
The appeal is dismissed.