State v. Bradley
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. ANNE M. BRADLEY (AC 33370) Gruendel, Robinson and Sheldon, Js. Argued May 29 officially released August 21, 2012 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia-Milford, geographical area number twentytwo, Levin, J.) Anne M. Bradley, pro se, the appellant (defendant). Lisa A. Riggione, senior assistant state s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Kevin D. Lawlor, state s attorney, and Kevin S. Russo, supervisory assistant state s attorney, for the appellee (state). Opinion PER CURIAM. In this matter, the defendant, Anne M. Bradley, was found guilty by a jury of breach of the peace in the second degree in violation of General Statutes ยง 53a-181 (6). The defendant thereafter moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the trial court granted on July 7, 2008. The state then filed a motion requesting permission to appeal, which the trial court granted. The state appealed and this court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case with direction to reinstate the jury s guilty verdict and to proceed to sentencing. See State v. Bradley, 124 Conn. App. 197, 4 A.3d 347, cert. denied, 295 Conn. 917, 990 A.2d 867 (2010). On March 21, 2011, the trial court sentenced the defendant to six months of incarceration, execution suspended, and two years of probation. This appeal followed. On appeal, the defendant claims that her constitutional right against double jeopardy was violated when, on the state s appeal from the posttrial judgment of acquittal entered for her by the trial court, this court reversed the trial court s judgment and remanded the case with direction to reinstate the jury s verdict.1 The defendant s claim is controlled by our Supreme Court s decision in State v. Avcollie, 178 Conn. 450, 453, 423 A.2d 118 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1015, 100 S. Ct. 667, 62 L Ed. 2d 645 (1980), in which the court held: [W]hen a case has been tried to a jury, the principle of double jeopardy does not prohibit an appeal by the prosecution providing that a retrial is not required in the event the prosecution is successful in its appeal. Thus, where a jury returns a verdict of guilty but the trial court thereafter renders a judgment of acquittal, an appeal is permitted and double jeopardy does not attach. Id., 453. Because this court directed the trial court to reinstate the jury s guilty verdict after it reversed the judgment of acquittal, and no new trial of her case was thereby necessitated, the court s order did not place the defendant twice in jeopardy for the same offense. Accordingly, the defendant s claim must fail. The judgment is affirmed. 1 The defendant also claims that the court erred in denying her motion to review her sentence and that it considered improper matters at her sentencing hearing. During the pendency of this appeal, the defendant successfully completed her sentence of probation. There is thus no practical relief that we can afford the defendant as to her sentence. Accordingly, the defendant s claims regarding her sentence are moot. See State v. Boyle, 287 Conn. 478, 486 87, 949 A.2d 460 (2008); see also State v. Scott, 83 Conn. App. 724, 726 27, 851 A.2d 353 (2004) (defendant s challenges to judgment of conviction were not moot due to his completion of sentence but his challenge to terms of conditional discharge was moot because court could not afford practical relief as to such claim).
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.
