Legal Opinion
State v. Dipaolo
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided March 15, 2005No. AC 24288PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*55 Opinion
McLACHLAN, J.
The defendant, Joseph P. DiPaolo, asks us to consider the legislative intent behind General Statutes § 14-227a (g), which enhances the penalties for recidivist drunken driving. Specifically, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly refused to dismiss the part B information charging him as a second time offender because his first conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor was in New York, a state that does not have the equivalent of Connecticut’s diversionary alcohol education program,1 and as such, he was a de…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. PeelerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- State v. Kirk R.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- Tarnowsky v. SocciSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- Kostrzewski v. Commissioner of Motor VehiclesConnecticut Appellate Court · 1999
- State v. AriscoConnecticut Appellate Court · 1995
3Cited by5 opinions
- Stratford Police Dept. v. Board of Firearms Permit ExaminersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2022
- State v. YoungConnecticut Appellate Court · 2019
- Spear v. Commissioner of Motor VehiclesConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
- State v. DiPaoloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- State v. FetscherConnecticut Appellate Court · 2015