Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller, 335 Conn. 474 (2020)

Citation: Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller, 335 Conn. 474 (2020)
Parent Document: Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller, 335 Conn. 474 (2020)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2020-04-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4801014/office-of-chief-disciplinary-co... ↗

Full Text

2,361 chars

denial with the Appellate Court. As already noted, the
          Appellate Court granted review but denied the requested
          relief. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial
          court’s denial of her motion violated her due process
          rights because she is left without the means to provide
          a full and complete record for this court to review. Nei-
          ther party addresses the appropriate standard of review
          for this claim. Even reviewing the claim de novo, how-
          ever, we are not persuaded that the defendant’s due
          process rights were violated.
             It is well settled that it ‘‘is the responsibility of the
          appellant to provide an adequate record for review.’’
          Practice Book § 61-10 (a). ‘‘The general purpose of [the
          relevant] rules of practice . . . [requiring the appellant
          to provide a sufficient record] is to ensure that there
          is a trial court record that is adequate for an informed
          appellate review of the various claims presented by the
          parties.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v.
          Donald, 325 Conn. 346, 353–54, 157 A.3d 1134 (2017).
          To ensure an adequate record, the appellant may move
          for articulation pursuant to Practice Book § 66-5.
             On the basis of our review of the record and the briefs,
          and our consideration of the arguments of the parties,
          we conclude that the trial court’s memorandum of deci-
          sion comprehensively sets forth the factual and legal
          bases for its conclusions. There was no ambiguity or
          deficiency in the memorandum of decision that would
          require the trial court’s articulation or prevent our review
          of the defendant’s claims on appeal. See In re Nevaeh
          W., 317 Conn. 723, 734, 120 A.3d 1177 (2015) (‘‘[a]n
          articulation is appropriate where the trial court’s deci-
          sion contains some ambiguity or deficiency reasonably
          susceptible of clarification’’ (internal quotation marks
          omitted)).
            Moreover, the defendant’s due process argument is
          unpersuasive given that, to the extent that there is ambi-
November 3, 2020          CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                          Page 33

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text