State v. Gillespie
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. GREGORY GILLESPIE (AC 25039) Flynn, DiPentima and McLachlan, Js. Argued May 31 officially released November 1, 2005 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Miano, J.) Bruce R. Lockwood, assistant state s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were James E. Thomas, state s attorney, and Vicki Melchiorre, senior assistant state s attorney, for the appellant (state). Monte P. Radler, public defender, for the appellee (acquittee). Opinion FLYNN, J. The state appeals from the January 6, 2004 judgment of the trial court rendered following the granting of the motion of the acquittee, Gregory Gillespie, to dismiss the state s petition for an order of continued commitment. On appeal, both the state and the acquittee claim that the trial court s decision should be reversed in light of our Supreme Court s decision in State v. Long, 268 Conn. 508, 847 A.2d 862, cert. denied, U.S. , 125 S. Ct. 424, 160 L. Ed. 2d 340 (2004). Although we agree that it must be reversed and have done so in State v. Gillespie, 92 Conn. App. 143, A.2d (2005), we disagree that it can be done in this appeal from the judgment rendered January 6, 2004. The sole issue before us on this appeal is whether General Statutes ยง 17a-593 (c) is unconstitutional because it is violative of the due process and equal protection rights of acquittees. The appeal was taken from the January 6, 2004 judgment. Because the court s order of May 21, 2004, was operative to open the judgment of January 6, 2004,1 the case then stood as though the judgment as originally entered had never been rendered. See Milford Trust Co. v. Greenberg, 137 Conn. 277, 279, 77 A.2d 80 (1950), citing Padaigis v. Kane, 125 Conn. 727, 728, 4 A.2d 335 (1939), and Simpson v. YMCA of Bridgeport, 118 Conn. 414, 418, 172 A. 855 (1934). Accordingly, any appeal from that judgment is void. See Milford Trust Co. v. Greenberg, supra, 137 Conn. 279; see also RAL Management, Inc., v. Valley View Associates, 88 Conn. App. 430, 872 A.2d 462 (2005), cert. granted, 274 Conn. 902, 876 A.2d 12 (2005). The appeal is dismissed. In this opinion the other judges concurred. 1 In its May 21, 2004 decision, the court references the December 23, 2003 decision, which was filed on January 6, 2004.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
