Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. 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 electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and 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 Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. RONDELL CHAMBERS (AC 19853)
Foti, Dranginis and Dupont, Js. Argued November 27, 2000--officially released February 13, 2001 Counsel

Carlos E. Candal, for the appellant (defendant). Robin S. Schwartz, special deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were James E. Thomas, state's attorney, and Dennis J. O'Connor, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Opinion

DUPONT, J. The defendant, Rondell Chambers, appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation and committing him to the custody of the commissioner of correction (commissioner) for a period of ten years. The defendant claims that (1) the state produced insufficient evidence to support a finding that he violated his probation and (2) the court abused its discretion by imposing the maximum sentence of ten years. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts are relevant to our discussion of the issues. On November 8, 1995, the defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes

Download State v. Chambers.pdf

Connecticut Law