State v. JAMAR D.
18 A.3d 582
Conn.2011Background
- Jamar D., age sixteen, was charged with multiple offenses and arraigned as a youthful offender under § 54-76b et seq.
- The state moved to transfer his case from the youthful offender docket to the regular criminal docket pursuant to § 54-76c (b)(1).
- Jamar objected, arguing the transfer and § 54-76c (b)(1) violate separation of powers and require a hearing; the state contends no standing or discretionary denial to hear the challenge.
- The trial court granted the transfer, continued the matter, and later held that the state had discretion to seek removal and that it could not deny the objection.
- Jamar appealed the transfer order and the denial of a hearing; the trial court stayed proceedings and sealed records, pending appeal.
- The Appellate Court sua sponte dismissed the appeal for lack of a final judgment; the Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification on whether dismissal was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the transfer order is an appealable Curcio interlocutory order | State argues no finality; no vested right triggers Curcio. | Jamar asserts a Curcio right due to alleged vested youthful offender status. | Not appealable; order not final under Curcio. |
| Whether § 54-76c (a) vests a right to youthful offender status and thus affects appealability | No vested right exists under the statute. | There is a statutory liberty interest in youthful offender status requiring process before transfer finalization. | Right exists but not concluded by the transfer order; transfer not final for Curcio purposes. |
| Whether Curcio's two-prong test applies to transfer decisions under § 54-76c (b)(1) | Transfer order conclusively affects rights and should be immediately appealable. | Transfer is not final; hearing on the regular docket is required before finalization. | Curcio not satisfied because transfer not yet finalized; appeal proper only after finalization. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (1983) (two-prong test for interlocutory appeals: finality or irretrievable rights)
- State v. Fielding, 296 Conn. 26 (2010) (curio framework and final judgment principles in modern context)
- State v. Longo, 192 Conn. 85 (1984) (denial of youthful offender status as an interlocutory issue)
- In re Juvenile Appeal (85-AB), 195 Conn. 303 (1985) (interlocutory appeal doctrines in juvenile contexts)
- State v. B.B., 300 Conn. 748 (2011) (youth charged with non-enumerated offenses has liberty interest in youthful offender status; hearing required before finalization)