440 A.2d 987 | Conn. Super. Ct. | 1981
The defendant, who was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of General Statutes
It appears that the issue of whether the denial of an application for accelerated rehabilitation constitutes a final judgment, which goes to the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the appeal, has been resolved in favor of allowing an appeal from such a ruling. State v. Spendolini, Supreme Court, Docket No. 10384 (denial of motion to dismiss appeal, November 5, 1980). In that case the Supreme Court denied a motion to dismiss an appeal taken at the same stage of the proceedings in the trial court as in this case. In State v. Bell,
Our consideration of the merits of the appeal is hampered by the lack of clarity in the record as to whether the trial court denied the application of the defendant in accordance with a general policy of not allowing accelerated rehabilitation where the charge is operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor. We have held that this offense is not necessarily so heinous that a conclusion that it is a crime of a "serious nature," for which accelerated rehabilitation is not available under the statute, can be reached without any consideration of the factual basis for the charge and the circumstances involved. State v. Lavorgna,
The decision of the trial court, as announced at the end of the hearing on the application, does not mention whether consideration was given to the *867
prosecutor's statement, which indicated that the defendant had a substantially higher alcohol level in his blood than that specified in General Statutes
Practice Book 3060D provides that if this court "deems it necessary to the proper disposition of the cause, it may remand the case for a further articulation of the basis of the trial court's decision." Because the record is unclear upon a point crucial to the determination of this appeal, we must seek clarification by the trial court of its reasons for the denial of the defendant's application for accelerated rehabilitation. See, e.g., State v. Ostroski,
It is ordered that this case be remanded to the trial court for a further articulation of the basis of its decision in accordance with this opinion.
In this opinion DALY and BIELUCH, Js., concurred.