State v. ShippState v. Shipp
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Hennessy
Opinion
HENNESSY, J.The defendant, Derrick Troy Shipp, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a trial to the court, of failure to display a marker or number plate in violation of
The court reasonably could have found the following facts. On June 7, 2001, at approximately 7:55 p.m., the defendant was operating a blue Buick Regal automobile eastbound on Post Road in Westport. Shawn Kelly, an officer with the Westport police department, was on duty with his partner traveling in a marked patrol car behind the defendant’s vehicle. Kelly could not observe a license plate in the rear of the defendant’s vehicle and increased the speed of his patrol car to get closer to the defendant’s vehicle. When Kelly got closer, he observed a license plate displayed in the defendant’s rear window. Kelly ran a computer check on the license plate number and learned that the license plate was registered to a different automobile, a red Audi. Kelly initiated a motor vehicle stop and asked the defendant to produce his operator’s license, vehicle registration and insurance information.
The defendant informed Kelly that the registration and the license plate were not registered to the Buick, but to a different vehicle. Kelly ran a computer check on the operator’s license and learned that the defendant’s license was suspended. The defendant informed Kelly that he did not have a notice of the restoration of his *431license. Kelly removed the defendant from the vehicle, handcuffed him and searched him. Kelly found a small fold of notebook paper containing a green leafy substance believed to be marijuana in the defendant’s front breast pocket.6
The defendant was charged with failure to display a marker or number plate, improper use of a license plate or marker, operating a vehicle with a suspended license, operation of an unregistered motor vehicle and possession of less than four ounces of marijuana. On February 26, 2002, the court found the defendant guilty of all the charges. On the same day, the court sentenced the defendant to pay the following fines: $90 for failure to display a license plate, $200 for improper use of a license plate or marker, $200 for operating a vehicle with a suspended license, $90 for operation of an unregistered vehicle and $500 for possession of less than four ounces of marijuana for a total fine of $1080. This appeal followed.
The defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to convict him because the state failed to present evidence that established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. “The standard of review we apply to a claim of insufficient evidence is well established. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction we apply a two-part test. First, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Second, we determine whether upon the facts so construed and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom the [finder of fact] reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence *432established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ashe, 74 Conn. App. 511, 516, 812 A.2d 194, cert. denied, 262 Conn. 949, 817 A.2d 108 (2003).
The defendant first argues that a conviction for failure to properly display a license plate is inconsistent with improper use of a license plate. Specifically, he contends that the police officer could not have run a computer check on the license plate number if it was not properly displayed. We do not agree.
Kelly testified that he could not see the license plate number until he “was able to catch up to the [defendant’s] vehicle and saw a plate in the rear window.” It is reasonable to believe that the defendant had the license plate positioned in the rear window of the vehicle in such a manner that it was not “legible at a distance of fifty feet. . . .”
The defendant also argues that his license should not have been suspended on June 7, 2001. At trial, the defendant argued that the underlying charge for which his license was suspended was nolled. Assuming that the defendant is correct and that his license should not have been suspended at that time, he still cannot prevail. The court heard evidence that the defendant was notified by mail on November 11, 2000, that he needed to send the department of motor vehicles a court receipt indicating that the case had been resolved or his license would be suspended on January 10,2001. The defendant did not so notify the department, and notice of his *433suspension was therefore sent to him. Even if he did not think that the suspension was not effective, actual knowledge of a suspension of a license is not required to find a violation of
The defendant also argues that the state did not prove that he knew he had marijuana in his possession or that he was aware that the substance found in his shirt pocket was marijuana. He also contends that there was no testimony or evidence to determine how the marijuana came to be in his pocket. The trier of fact may “infer that a defendant who is in fact in physical possession of a substance knows the character of the substance and knows of its presence. This is not, of course, a mandatory inference, but it is a permissive inference, depending upon all the facts and circumstances.” State v. Jackson, 13 Conn. App. 288, 292, 535 A.2d 1327 (1988); see also State v. Paris, 63 Conn. App. 284, 288-89, 775 A.2d 994, cert. denied, 257 Conn. 909, 782 A.2d 135 (2001). We therefore find that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of possession of marijuana.
Prior to oral argument to this court, the state notified this court that the trial court improperly had sentenced the defendant. The court had ordered the defendant to pay $200 for his conviction of improper use of a license plate or marker. The maximum monetary fine allowed pursuant to § 14-157 (c), however, is $100.7 The state urges this court to order the trial court on remand to impose the maximum monetary penalty allowed under the statute. There is no way for this court to infer that the trial court intended to impose the maximum monetary penalty, and it is not the function of this court to impose the new sentence. See State v. Cook, 36 Conn. *434App. 710, 717-18, 653 A.2d 829 (1995). Pursuant to
The judgment is reversed only as to the fine imposed on the conviction of improper use of a license plate or marker and the case is remanded with direction to resentence the defendant on that count. The judgment is affirmed in all other aspects.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Notes
“(c) Such number plates when displayed upon motor vehicles shall be entirely unobscured and the numerals and letters thereon shall be plainly legible at all times. Such number plates shall be horizontal, and shall be fastened so as not to swing and, during the time when a motor vehicle is required to display lights, the rear number plate shall be so illuminated as to be legible at a distance of fifty feet. . . .”
According to the testimony of Mark Anderson, an employee of the department of public safety’s controlled substances laboratory, chemical tests performed on the green leafy substance produced a positive result for the presence of delta THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. See State v. Padua, 73 Conn. App. 386, 397, 808 A.2d 361 (2002), cert. granted on other grounds, 262 Conn. 941, 815 A.2d 672 (2003).
See footnote 5.