SC19153
Conn.Aug 19, 2014Background
- Respondent Tyriq T., sixteen at arrest, faced juvenile charges for firearms and theft offenses.
- State moved to transfer the case from the juvenile docket to the regular criminal docket under § 46b-127(b)(1).
- Trial court held a two-day hearing and transferred the case to the regular criminal docket after factual findings.
- Respondent appealed to the Appellate Court, which sua sponte asked whether the transfer order was a final judgment and dismissed the appeal for lack of finality.
- This certified appeal questions whether discretionary transfer orders under § 46b-127(b)(1) are final judgments for purposes of appeal, given legislative history and statutory language.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discretionary transfer orders under § 46b-127(b)(1) are final judgments for appeal. | Tyriq asserts legislature did not intend to bar interlocutory appeals. | State argues legislature intended to prohibit interlocutory appeals of discretionary transfers. | Discretionary transfer orders are not final judgments for appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Daniel H., 237 Conn. 364 (1996) (held deletion of final judgment language eliminated right to immediate appeal)
- In re Juvenile Appeal (AB), 195 Conn. 303 (1985) (discretionary transfer orders were not final judgments for appeal)
- Abreu v. Leone, 291 Conn. 332 (2009) (recognizes limited circumstances when interlocutory actions are final judgments)
- In re Michael S., 258 Conn. 621 (2001) (discussed proceedings related to final judgment status post-1994 amendment)
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (1983) (established final-judgment criteria for appeal in Curcio framework)