DocketNumber: No. N06N M198 2621356S
Citation Numbers: 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 9250
Judges: ADAMS, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 7/15/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Practice Book sec. 44-30 (c) states that the magistrate's decision shall become a judgment of the court if no demand for a trial de novo is filed. Furthermore, the section reads:
A demand for a trial de novo shall be filed with the court clerk within five days of the date the decision was rendered by the magistrate . . .
On its face Dunbar's de novo trial demand was not timely since it was filed on the sixth day following the magistrate's decision. When this matter appeared on the calendar on June 28, 1999 Dunbar argued that the demand was timely because (1) he was incarcerated on the day of the decision, August 19, 1998 (a fact stipulated to by the State) and (2) the final day of the five day period for filing a demand, i.e. August 24, 1998 fell on a Sunday. If the factual underpinning of his argument were correct Dunbar would be allowed an additional day to file his demand. See
Practice Book sec.
Dunbar is ordered to pay the fine imposed by the magistrate within ten days of the date of this decision, and the clerk is requested to mail a copy of this decision to Dunbar and the State's Attorney without delay.
Taggart D. Adams, Judge