State v. Pearson
Practice Book §67-4 requires, inter alia, that an appellant's brief concisely set forth the issues raised on appeal, the applicable standard of review and legal authorities cited in support of the appellant's position and Practice Book §61-10 states that an appellant bears the responsibility of furnishing an adequate record to review the issue presented. Washington Pearson, a Massachusetts' resident, was charged in Connecticut with possession of burglar's tools and a weapon in a vehicle. While out on bond, Pearson was convicted of a felony in Massachusetts and incarcerated. Connecticut charged him with failure to appear and issued a warrant for his re-arrest. The state sent a certified copy of the arrest warrant to the correction facility in Massachusetts where Pearson was incarcerated. An accompanying letter requested that the certified arrest warrant be lodged as a detainer and explained that extradition was authorized by the state of Massachusetts. Pearson eventually arrived in Connecticut to face the charges against him to which a burglary charge was added. Pearson entered a plea of nolo contendere to the burglary charge conditioned on his not waiving jurisdictional claims for appeal. Judgment entered accordingly. Pearson appealed pro se appearing to claim that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because the state did not follow proper extradition procedures under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, C.G.S. §54-186. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment concluding that it was unable to review the claim on appeal. The defendant failed to provide the court with an adequate brief or record for review. In his brief, the defendant did not set forth the claims he wished the court to address. He alluded to a claim that his extradition was invalid because it was not approved by the executive authority of either Connecticut or Massachusetts and because Connecticut did not properly lodge a detainer with Massachusetts. The defendant did not articulate how, even if true, his claim had legal significance with respect to his nolo contendere plea and sentencing. He did not cite to a single legal authority in support of his position. The record was bereft of facts relating to his extradition.