Opinion · Supreme Court of Connecticut
State v. Braswell
State v. Braswell, 243 Conn. 248 (Conn. 1997)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of Connecticut
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut
- Date
- 1997-11-11
- Topic
- bankruptcy
Opinion PER CURIAM. 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 *249should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.1 The appeal is dismissed. We granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court; State v. Braswell, 42 Conn. App. 264, 679 A.2d 973 (1996); limited to the following issue: “Whether the Appellate Court properly held that the defendant’s conviction and consecutive sentence for attempted sale of narcotics in violation of General Statutes §§ 21a-278 (b) and 53a-49 (a) and attempted delivery of narcotics to an inmate of a correctional institution in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-174 (a) and 53a-49 (a) did not violate principles of double jeopardy?” State v.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed State v. Braswell. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 7 opinions
Opinion
PER CURIAM.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
The appeal is dismissed.
We granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court; State v. Braswell, 42 Conn. App. 264, 679 A.2d 973 (1996); limited to the following issue: “Whether the Appellate Court properly held that the defendant’s conviction and consecutive sentence for attempted sale of narcotics in violation of General Statutes §§ 21a-278 (b) and 53a-49 (a) and attempted delivery of narcotics to an inmate of a correctional institution in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-174 (a) and 53a-49 (a) did not violate principles of double jeopardy?” State v. Braswell, 239 Conn. 917, 682 A.2d 1006 (1996).