State v. Guild, 214 Conn.App. 121

In 1997 Guild attacked his father, was charged with attempt to murder and first‑degree assault, and was acquitted by reason of mental disease or defect.
On March 5, 1999 Guild was committed to the Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB) for up to twenty years; he was conditionally released in 2016.
The state filed a petition under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a‑593(c) in November 2018 seeking continued commitment beyond Guild’s maximum term (March 5, 2019); the PSRB recommended continued commitment.
Guild moved to dismiss the state’s petition, arguing § 17a‑593(c) is unconstitutional as applied to him under the Equal Protection Clause; the trial court denied the motion in a corrected memorandum of decision (Dec. 2, 2019).
Guild appealed the denial. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, holding the denial was not a final judgment under the two‑pronged Curcio test.

Issue	Guild's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s denial of Guild’s motion to dismiss is immediately appealable under Curcio’s first prong (separate and distinct proceeding)?	The equal‑protection motion was a separate, ancillary proceeding severable from the merits of the continued‑commitment petition.	The constitutional challenge is inextricably intertwined with the merits of the petition; proceedings are not severable.	Denial not appealable under first prong — challenge was intertwined with petition and merely a step toward final judgment.
Whether the denial is immediately appealable under Curcio’s second prong (irreparable loss of a claimed right)?	Guild has a colorable as‑applied equal‑protection right to discharge at the expiration of his maximum term; denial threatens irretrievable loss of that right.	Guild’s claimed right is not irretrievably lost: the petition remains pending, the trial court might deny the petition and discharge him, and the right can be enforced at trial or on appeal from a final judgment.	Denial not appealable under second prong — no irreparable loss; further proceedings could vindicate Guild’s claimed right.

State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 463 A.2d 566 (1983) (establishes two‑prong test for treating interlocutory orders as final for appeal).
Abreu v. Leone, 291 Conn. 332, 968 A.2d 385 (2009) (explains severability requirement under Curcio’s first prong).
State v. Bemer, 339 Conn. 528, 262 A.3d 1 (2021) (applies Curcio and discusses when interlocutory rulings are steps toward final judgment).
Palmer v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 285 Conn. 462, 940 A.2d 742 (2008) (statutory requirement that appeals generally lie only from final judgments).
Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 288 Conn. 646, 954 A.2d 816 (2008) (jurisdictional nature of final‑judgment requirement).
State v. Coleman, 202 Conn. 86, 519 A.2d 1201 (1987) (second Curcio prong not satisfied where denial of motion to dismiss did not irretrievably abrogate right).
Halladay v. Commissioner of Correction, 340 Conn. 52, 262 A.3d 823 (2021) (clarifies irreparable‑harm focus of Curcio’s second prong).
Blakely v. Danbury Hospital, 323 Conn. 741, 150 A.3d 1109 (2016) (examples of rights warranting immediate appeal under Curcio’s second prong).
State v. Parker, 194 Conn. 650, 485 A.2d 139 (1984) (discusses whether ancillary proceedings can proceed independently).
State v. Metz, 230 Conn. 400, 645 A.2d 965 (1994) (interpreted statutory framework for continued commitment of acquittees; relied on by Guild in equal‑protection argument).