STATE v. SCOTT WINER, SC 17889

Judicial District of New Britain

Criminal; Whether the Defendant's Case Should have been Dismissed Pursuant to General Statutes § 54-142a (c), which Mandates that a Criminal Charge Will be Nolled Where the Case Remains Dormant for a Period of Thirteen Months After the State has been Granted a Continuance. On August 2, 2000, the defendant entered a plea of not guilty to the charge of failure to register as a sex offender and elected a jury trial.  On June 13, 2001, the state indicated to the trial court that the defendant's case was on the firm trial list and was "going to remain on the firm trial list."  Approximately three and one-half years later, on December 14, 2004, the state requested that the court place the case on the active case list for trial.  The defendant moved to dismiss the case pursuant to General Statutes § 54-142a (c), which mandates a nolle of any criminal charge whenever the case has been continued at the request of the prosecuting attorney and there has been no prosecution or other disposition of the matter for a period of thirteen months.  Section 54-142a (c) was adopted by the legislature in order to avoid violations of the sixth amendment right to a speedy trial.   Here, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that because the defendant did not accept the state's plea bargain offer and sought a trial, the case had been continued at his request and, therefore, § 54-142a (c) was not applicable.  Subsequently, the jury found the defendant guilty of the crime of failure to register as a sex offender.  The defendant appealed, claiming that the charge should have been nolled by operation of law pursuant to § 54-142a (c).  The Appellate Court (99 Conn. App. 579) disagreed with the trial court that the case had been continued at the request of the defendant, and not the state.  The court found that the prosecutor's statement that the case was "going to remain on the firm trial list" constituted a request for a continuance because it effectively postponed the defendant's case and continued it for an indefinite time.  Further, while the court interpreted the language "at the request of the prosecuting attorney" as an attempt by the legislature to prevent misconduct not only on the part of the state, but also on the part of the defendant, the court also determined that there was no evidence in the record to support the trial court's intimation that the defendant strategically delayed the prosecution of his case so he could seek a nolle after the expiration of the thirteen month period.  Accordingly, based on its conclusion that the defendant's case had been continued at the request of the state and, thereafter, had remained dormant for more than thirteen months, the Appellate Court, pursuant to § 54-142a (c), reversed the defendant's conviction and remanded with directions to dismiss the charge.  In this appeal, the Supreme Court will determine whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the defendant was entitled to a dismissal of his case under § 54-142a (c).