State v. Mendez, 154 Conn.App. 271

At a March 13, 2011 Fairfield University party, the defendant (Mendez) and co-defendant Lee were present; after the party the victim was struck from behind, then punched in the jaw by Mendez, and his gold/silver chain was forcibly taken.
The victim sustained a broken jaw in two places, required corrective surgery with plates and screws, had teeth removed, and experienced prolonged impairment and pain.
Campus officers stopped a black Mazda leaving the scene; Lee was the driver and Mendez was a passenger; the victim identified Mendez at the stop.
Mendez was charged with several counts including robbery in the first degree, assault, larceny, and two conspiracy counts: conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree and conspiracy to commit larceny in the second degree.
A jury convicted Mendez of both conspiracy counts but acquitted him of the substantive robbery, assault, and larceny charges; the court imposed concurrent sentences. On appeal, Mendez challenged sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to commit first-degree robbery; the state raised a double jeopardy issue regarding the two conspiracy convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree (whether defendant had specific intent to cause "serious physical injury")	State: Circumstantial evidence (arrival together, coordinated assault, punching the jaw, immediate removal of chain, flight) supports inference Mendez intended the natural consequence (serious injury) and thus had specific intent for the conspiracy object.	Mendez: A single punch does not establish specific intent to cause serious physical injury required for first‑degree robbery conspiracy.	Court: Affirmed — viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, jurors reasonably could infer specific intent to cause serious physical injury.
Double jeopardy from multiple conspiracy convictions arising from one agreement	State (on appeal): Punishing the defendant for two conspiracies based on a single agreement violates double jeopardy; only one conspiracy can be punished when the facts point to one agreement.	(Implicit) Trial court imposed concurrent sentences on both conspiracy convictions; defendant did not raise issue but state pressed it on appeal.	Court: Agreed with state — reversed conviction for conspiracy to commit larceny and remanded to vacate that conviction; affirmed remaining conviction.

State v. Vega, 128 Conn. App. 20 (Conn. App. 2011) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Palangio, 115 Conn. App. 355 (Conn. App. 2009) (elements of conspiracy under § 53a-48)
State v. Padua, 273 Conn. 138 (Conn. 2005) (conspiracy is specific intent crime; must prove intent to commit object offense)
State v. Channer, 28 Conn. App. 161 (Conn. App. 1992) (entire chain of events can support conspiracy to commit robbery conviction)
State v. Sawicki, 173 Conn. 389 (Conn. 1977) (serious physical injury found where victim sustained fractured upper jaw and required corrective surgery)
State v. Polanco, 308 Conn. 242 (Conn. 2013) (remedy for multiple punishments for conspiracies arising from a single agreement)