Case Summary: In re Jonathan M. (Supreme Court of Connecticut, Oct. 9, 1997)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion addresses a petition for certification to appeal to the Supreme Court of Connecticut filed by the respondent seeking review of an Appellate Court decision (46 Conn. App. 545, AC 14693). The Supreme Court's brief published entry states that the respondent's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court was denied. The opinion contains a noted dissent by Justice Norcott, who stated that he would grant the petition. Justice Katz did not participate in the consideration or decision of the petition. Counsel identified in the opinion include Mark N. Shapera, deputy assistant public defender, who supported the petition, and Leon F. Dalbec, Jr., assistant state's attorney, who opposed it.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion is a short adjudication on whether to grant certification to appeal and does not frame distinct legal issues for resolution beyond that procedural determination.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion lists counsel for each side but does not provide a detailed account of their arguments.

The opinion notes counsel appearances as follows:

• Mark N. Shapera, deputy assistant public defender — listed "in support of the petition."
• Leon F. Dalbec, Jr., assistant state's attorney — listed "in opposition."

No further particulars of the parties' substantive legal arguments are set forth in this opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

This entry is a brief administrative disposition and contains no elaborated legal analysis or reasoning explaining the basis for the denial. The full text of the opinion provides only the dispositive statement that the respondent's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court (46 Conn. App. 545) is denied. There is no discussion of the legal standards for granting certification, application of precedent, or factual findings underpinning the procedural decision within this opinion.

The opinion does record a single-justice dissent: Justice Norcott explicitly stated that he would grant the respondent's petition for certification to appeal. It also records that Justice Katz did not participate in consideration or decision of the petition.

Holding and Implications

Holding: DENIED — The respondent's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court (46 Conn. App. 545, AC 14693) was denied by the Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Implications:

• The immediate, direct consequence is that the respondent was not granted certification by the Supreme Court to pursue an appeal from the specified Appellate Court decision.
• The opinion itself contains no written reasoning or precedential analysis that would establish a new legal rule; it is a procedural disposition. The presence of a dissent indicates at least one justice disagreed with the denial, but the majority issued no explanatory opinion setting forth broader legal implications.

Source material: Text of the provided opinion entry for In re Jonathan M., Supreme Court of Connecticut (Oct. 9, 1997). This summary contains only information explicitly stated in that entry and does not add or infer facts or reasoning beyond the opinion's text.