Argued
September 19, 2019
Page 63
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 64
Appeal
from the Superior Court, Judicial District of Middlesex,
Keegan, J.
Naomi
T. Fetterman, with whom was Aaron J. Romano, Bloomfield, for
the appellant (defendant).
James
M. Ralls, assistant states attorney, with whom, on the
brief, were Michael Gailor, states attorney, and Russell
Zentner, senior assistant states attorney, for the appellee
(state).
DiPentima,
C.J., and Keller and Sheldon, Js.
OPINION
SHELDON,
J.
[195
Conn.App. 38] In this consolidated appeal, the defendant,
William Hyde Bradley, appeals from judgments that were
rendered against him by the trial court following his entry
of conditional pleas of nolo contendere to charges of sale of
a controlled substance in violation of General Statutes §
21a-277 (b) and violation of probation in violation of
General Statutes § 53a-32. On appeal, the defendant claims
that the court erred in denying his motions to dismiss those
charges, wherein he argued, inter alia, that his prosecution
under Connecticuts statutes criminalizing the possession and
sale of marijuana violated his rights under the equal
protection clause of the United States constitution because
such statutes were enacted for the illicit purpose of
discriminating against persons of African-American and
Mexican descent. We affirm the judgments of the court,
concluding that it did not err in denying the defendants
motions to dismiss. We do so, however, on the alternative
ground raised by the state that the defendant, as a nonmember
of either group of persons against whom he claims that the
challenged statutes were enacted to discriminate, lacked
standing to bring such an equal protection claim.
Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of the defendants
equal protection claim on this appeal.
The
following procedural history and facts, as stipulated to by
the parties, are relevant to our resolution of this appeal.
On January 13, 2017, while the defendant was serving a
sentence of probation in connection with a prior conviction
of possession of marijuana with intent to sell, probation
officers conducting a home visit [195 Conn.App. 39] at his
residence discovered approximately thirty ounces of marijuana
in his possession. On the basis of that discovery, the state
charged the defendant, in two separate informations, as
follows: in docket number M09M-CR17-0210994-S, with one count
each of possession of one-half ounce or more of marijuana
within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes
§ 21a-279 (b) and sale of a controlled substance in violation
of § 21a-277 (b); and in docket number MMX-CR14-0204977-T,
with violation of probation in violation of § 53a-32.
The
defendant moved to dismiss the charges by filing two parallel
motions to dismiss, one in each docket number. He argued in
those motions, inter alia, that his prosecution under
Connecticuts statutes criminalizing the possession and sale
of marijuana violated (1) his right to equal protection under
the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution
Page 65
because such statutes were enacted for the illicit purpose of
discriminating against persons of African-American and
Mexican descent; and (2) his right to equal protection under
article first, § 20, of the constitution of Connecticut
because the enforcement of such statutes had a disparate
impact on persons of African-American descent. The state
filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the defendants
motions to dismiss, to which the defendant responded by
filing a reply. Following a hearing on the motions, the court
ordered the parties to file supplemental memoranda addressing
whether the defendant, whom the court had found to be
Caucasian, had standing to bring an equal protection
challenge to statutes on the ground that they had been
enacted for the purpose of discriminating against members of
racial or ethnic minority groups of which he was not a
member. After the parties filed their supplemental memoranda,
the court heard oral argument. Thereafter, in a memorandum of
decision dated June 1, 2018, the court [195 Conn.App. 40]
agreed with the defendant that, regardless of his race or
ethnicity, he had standing to bring an equal protection
challenge to the statutes under which he was charged because
there was a genuine likelihood that he, as a person so
charged, would be convicted under those statutes. The court
went on to rule, however, that the defendant could not
prevail on the merits of his equal protection claim because
even if he could prove that enforcement of the challenged
statutes had a disparate impact on persons of
African-American or Mexican descent, he could not prove that
the legislatures true purpose in enacting those statutes was
to discriminate against the members of either such group.
Thereafter, upon conducting an analysis under State v.
Geisler, 222 Conn. 672, 685, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992), the
court also rejected the defendants additional claim that his
prosecution under the challenged statutes violated his rights
under the equal protection clause of the Connecticut
constitution, which he had based on the theory that that
provision affords greater protection than its federal
counterpart because violation of that provision, unlike the
federal equal protection clause, can be established by proof
of disparate impact alone.[1] Rejecting that argument, the court
denied the defendants motions to dismiss in their entirety.
On
August 28, 2018, the defendant entered pleas of nolo
contendere to charges of sale of a controlled substance and
violation of probation, which were based on his alleged
possession of, with intent to sell, the marijuana that the
probation officers had found in his residence. The
defendants pleas, which were entered pursuant to General
Statutes § 54-94a, were conditioned on preserving his right
to appeal from his resulting convictions based on the trial
courts prior denial of [195 Conn.App. 41] his motions to
dismiss. The court thereafter sentenced the defendant as
follows: on his conviction of sale of a controlled substance,
he was sentenced to an unconditional discharge; and on his
violation of probation, his probation was revoked, and he was
sentenced to a term of five and one-half years of
incarceration, execution suspended, and two years of
probation. These appeals, later consolidated by order of this
court, followed.[2]
Page 66
On
appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied
his motions to dismiss. He argues here, as he did before the
trial court, that Connecticuts statutes criminalizing the
possession and sale of marijuana were enacted for the illicit
purpose of discriminating against persons of African-American
and Mexican descent, and thus that his prosecution under
those statutes violated the equal protection clause of the
United States constitution. The defendant ...