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. VAUGHN D. OUTLAW (AC 19284)
Foti, Landau and Dupont, Js. Argued June 1--officially released October 24, 2000 Counsel

Katerina M. Rohner, with whom, on the brief, were Donald D. Dakers, special public defender, and Brian Driscoll, law student intern, for the appellant (defendant). Bruce R. Lockwood, deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state's attorney, and James G. Clark, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Opinion

LANDAU, J. The defendant, Vaughn D. Outlaw, appeals from the judgment revoking his probation and committing him to the custody of the commissioner of correction (commissioner) to serve the suspended portion of a sentence imposed on April 4, 1986. Although the defendant concedes that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that he violated the terms of his probation, he claims, on appeal,

that the court improperly denied his motions to dismiss the violation of probation charges because (1) his term of probation had expired before the arrest warrant for violation of probation was issued and (2) General Statutes

Download State v. Outlaw.pdf

Connecticut Law