author: HARPER, J.

text:
    COLLEEN J. HANNON v. MICHAEL R. REDLER
    (AC 29257)
    Bishop, Harper and Schaller, Js.

      Argued April 28
    officially released September 29, 2009

      George Markley, with whom was Richard G. Kent, for the appellant (defendant).

      David J. Elliott, with whom was Laura J. Marietta, for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Opinion

HARPER, J.

The defendant, Michael R. Redler, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Colleen J. Hannon. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) determined the value of his interest in his medical practice, (2) determined the net equity in his home, (3) determined his income and (4) ordered alimony and a distribution of assets to the plaintiff. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The parties were married on September 12, 1981. At the time of dissolution, the parties had four adult children born of the marriage, two of whom were ages twenty and twenty-two. The plaintiff was the director of human resources for a company named Alenia North America. The defendant was an orthopedic surgeon in a medical practice named Orthopedic and Sports Medicine Center (medical practice). The medical practice was a limited liability company, which the defendant started in late 1994 “in partnership with” other persons. After four days of trial, the court dissolved the parties’ marriage by a memorandum of decision filed on September 28, 2007. The court found that the parties had been separated and living apart since January, 2004. It found that the marriage had broken down irretrievably and entered various financial orders. In relevant part, it ordered the defendant to pay $4000 per month in alimony until the children finished college or until October 31, 2011, whichever occurred first. Thereafter, an increase in the alimony was ordered for a total of $6000 per month until the year 2022. The court also made factual findings as to the value of the parties’ assets and their respective incomes and distributed the assets according to its findings. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

At the outset, “[t]he standard of review in family matters is well settled. An appellate court will not disturb a trial court’s orders in domestic relations cases unless the court has abused its discretion or it is found that it could not reasonably conclude as it did, based on the facts presented. ... It is within the province of the trial court to find facts and draw proper inferences from the evidence presented. ... In determining whether a trial court has abused its broad discretion in domestic relations matters, we allow every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of its action. . . . [T]o conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, we must find that the court either incorrectly applied the law or could not reasonably conclude as it did. . . . Appellate review of a trial court’s findings of fact is governed by the clearly erroneous standard of review. ... A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it ... or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Elia v. Elia, 99 Conn. App. 829, 831, 916 A.2d 845 (2007). “With respect to the financial awards in a dissolution action, great weight is given to the judgment of the trial court because of its opportunity to observe the parties and the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bornemann v. Bornemann, 245 Conn. 508, 530, 752 A.2d 978 (1998).

I

First, the defendant claims that the court improperly determined the value of his interest in the medical practice by inferring a value significantly higher than its actual value at the time of the dissolution. Specifically, the defendant argues that the court lacked sufficient evidence to determine the value of his interest. We disagree.

The following additional facts are relevant to the defendant’s claim. During the first day of trial, the plaintiff testified that she assisted the defendant and his medical business “partners” with the startup of the medical practice from 1993 to 1994 and had purchased computers, desks and supplies for the office. She testified that she worked for eight to nine months with the defendant, planning the startup of the medical practice. The plaintiff also testified that the defendant admitted to her during the marriage that the value of his interest in the medical practice was $500,000 and that when he started the medical practice, the initial buyout during that time was valued at $500,000. Later during that first day of trial, the court noted that the defendant claimed on his financial affidavit, that the total cash value of all of his assets was zero. During the second day of trial, one of the defendant’s business partners, Stuart Belkin, a physician, testified that the medical practice had a buyout agreement that entitled a business partner who retired at the age of sixty-five to receive a buyout of his interest valued at $500,000.

By the end of trial, no buyout agreement had been produced to the court, and the defendant offered no evidence to assist the court as to the current value of his interest in the medical practice. The court found, in its memorandum of decision, that the defendant’s interest in the medical practice was valued at $500,000. The defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence for the court to determine the value of his interest in the medical practice. The defendant also asserts that because neither party produced sufficient evidence of the present value of his interest in the medical practice, the court could not infer or estimate a value.

“In distributing the assets of the marital estate, the court is required by [General Statutes] § 46b-81 to consider the estate of each of the parties. Implicit in this requirement is the need to consider the economic value of the parties’ estates. The court need not, however, assign specific values to the parties’ assets. ... In assessing the value of the assets that comprise the marital estate, the trial court functions as the trier of fact. The trial court has the right to accept so much of the testimony ... as [it] finds applicable .... [It] arrives at [its] own conclusions by weighing the opinions of the appraisers, the claims of the parties, and [its] own general knowledge of the elements going to establish value, and then employs the most appropriate method of determining valuation. ... In selecting and applying an appropriate valuation method, the trial court has considerable discretion. . . . The trial court’s findings will be overturned only if it misapplies, overlooks, or gives a wrong or improper effect to any test or consideration which it was [its] duty to regard.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bornemann v. Bornemann, supra, 245 Conn. 531-32.

“[When] the factual basis of the court’s decision is challenged, our review includes determining whether the facts set out in the memorandum of decision are supported by the record or whether, in light of the evidence and the pleadings in the whole record, those facts are clearly erroneous. . . . Further, a court’s inference of fact is not reversible unless the inference was arrived at unreasonably. . . . We note as well that [tjriers of fact must often rely on circumstantial evidence and draw inferences from it. . . . Proof of a material fact by inference need not be so conclusive as to exclude every other hypothesis. It is sufficient if the evidence produces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief in the probability of the existence of the material fact. . . . Moreover, it is the exclusive province of the trier of fact to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses and determine whether to accept some, all or none of a witness' testimony. . . . Thus, if the court’s dispositive finding here was not clearly erroneous, then the judgment must be affirmed.” (Citations omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Levy, Miller, Maretz, LLC v. Vuoso, 70 Conn. App. 124, 130-31, 797 A.2d 574 (2002).

The issue before us is whether the court’s finding that the value of the medical practice was $500,000 was clearly erroneous in light of the evidence in the record. We conclude that it was not. As shown in the record, the court had sufficient evidence before it, by way of testimony during the four day trial, to determine a value for the medical practice. To dispute this, the defendant argues that there was a lack of evidence before the court to enable the court to find a value of his interest in the medical practice. The record reflects that the defendant failed to provide the court with sufficient evidence to assist the court in determining the value of his interest in the medical practice. Nonetheless, the lack of evidence from the defendant did not preclude the court from determining the value of his interest in the medical practice and providing an equitable distribution of this asset. It was not improper for the court to value the asset, by way of the testimony before it, on the basis of the buyout agreement’s value of the defendant’s interest in the medical practice. As noted previously, the court, as trier of fact, was free to accept any, all or none of the testimony before it on the issue relating to the value of the defendant’s interest in the medical practice. See, e.g., Gyerko v. Gyerko, 113 Conn. App. 298, 305, 966 A.2d 306 (2009).

Further, the defendant had notice that his interest in the medical practice might be distributed, and his decision not to provide the court with evidence as to the current value of his interest is not a decision about which he can later complain. Our Supreme Court, in Bornemann v. Bornemann, supra, 245 Conn. 508, noted that “when neither party in a dissolution proceeding chooses to introduce detailed information as to the value of a given asset, neither party may later complain that it is not satisfied with the court’s valuation of that asset. Both parties in a dissolution proceeding are required to itemize all of their assets in a financial affidavit and to provide the court with the approximate value of each asset. ... If the parties fail to do so, the equitable nature of the proceedings precludes them from later seeking to have the financial orders overturned on the basis that the court had before it too little information as to the value of the assets distributed.” (Citation omitted.) Id., 535-36.

In light of the testimony and evidence presented at trial, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence before the court to support its factual finding that the defendant’s medical practice was valued at $500,000 at the time of dissolution.

II

Next, the defendant claims that the court improperly determined the net equity in his home in failing to deduct from the net equity a loan that a girlfriend, Michelle Clark, made to him when he purchased the property. We are unpersuaded.

The following additional facts are relevant to the defendant’s claim. The court found that the parties were separated in January, 2004, but living in separate bedrooms within their marital home in Fairfield on Lookout Drive. In June, 2004, the parties purchased a beachfront home in Milford on Seaview Avenue. The plaintiff immediately moved out of the marital home on Lookout Drive and began living in the Seaview Avenue property. The defendant remained in the marital home. In December, 2004, the marital home was sold, and the defendant rented a house for the next six months in Fairfield. In June, 2005, the defendant moved in with the plaintiff. Thereafter, the parties formally agreed to divorce in October, 2005. In January, 2006, the plaintiff filed for marital dissolution. In November, 2006, less than one year after the plaintiff filed the marital dissolution action, the defendant moved out of the plaintiffs home on Seaview Avenue and purchased a new home for himself in Fairfield on South Pine Creek Road, the property at issue. The cost of the new home was approximately $1.36 million. To purchase the new home, the defendant used $54,000 from the home equity line of credit on the Seaview Avenue property, $220,000 in cash loaned to him by Clark and $1.08 million in a mortgage loan. The defendant testified that he sporadically repaid the loan to Clark, but he could not recall the exact amount that had been repaid.

The defendant submitted two financial affidavits to the court, one on February 20, 2007, and the other on July 3, 2007. In both financial affidavits, the defendant listed his debt liability as either zero or left the space blank. During the four day trial, the court heard testimony from the defendant that he borrowed money from Clark and was obligated to pay it back. The court also heard testimony from Clark that the loan did not require a monthly payment and that the defendant was obligated to pay the loan when he was capable of doing so or upon the sale of other real estate that he owned. Clark testified that there was a promissory note executed that detailed the loan agreement terms and that the note was created by her attorney. In addition, when Clark was asked whether the defendant requested a loan to purchase the property, Clark testified that she offered the loan to the defendant. The defendant did not produce the note to the court. In its memorandum of decision, the court valued the net equity on the South Pine Creek Road property as $280,000. The defendant asserts that the court’s determination of the net equity does not reflect the debt to Clark.

The court made no finding as to whether the loan by Clark was a gift or a debt. It further did not state the basis for its calculation of the net equity on the defendant’s home. The defendant failed to seek an articulation with respect to the basis of the net equity value. Without an articulation to clarify this issue, we would be forced to speculate as to whether the court improperly failed to reduce the net equity of the defendant’s home by the amount of the loan to Clark. “An articulation may be necessary where the trial court fails completely to state any basis for its decision ... or where the basis, although stated, is unclear. ... It is the responsibility of the appellant to provide an adequate record for review as provided in [Practice Book §] 61-10. . . . Conclusions of the trial court cannot be reviewed where the appellant fails to establish through an adequate record that the trial court incorrectly applied the law or could not reasonably have concluded as it did. . . . When the trial court does not provide the necessary factual and legal conclusions, either on its own or in response to a proper motion for articulation, any decision made by us respecting this claim would be entirely speculative.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gyerko v. Gyerko, supra, 113 Conn. App. 317-18. The failure to seek an articulation leaves us without the ability to engage in a meaningful review. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the court’s calculation was improper.

Ill

Next, the defendant claims that the court improperly determined his gross and weekly income when it failed to consider an updated financial affidavit submitted to the court, which, reflected a significantly lower figure than what was first presented to the court. We are unpersuaded.

The following additional facts are necessary to the defendant’s claim. The defendant submitted two financial affidavits to the court in 2007. The first financial affidavit was submitted on Februaiy 20, 2007. On the first day of trial, the defendant’s counsel stated to the court that the defendant had provided his accountant with information to complete his February 20, 2007 financial affidavit. The defendant’s counsel also provided the court with a document titled, “Statement of Financial Condition,” dated for 2006, that was completed by the defendant’s accountant. The defendant’s counsel confirmed that the defendant had reviewed the documents for accuracy. On the second day of trial, Belkin testified that there was no increase or decrease in patient visits during the past year. He testified that the flow of patients had been consistent since the start of the medical practice and that the defendant had remained consistently busy. He further testified that five out of the six business partners, including the defendant, had received a consistent base rate in their biweekly paychecks for several years. He testified that the five partners, including the defendant, received $320,000 annually, in addition to their quarterly bonuses that ranged from zero to $50,000.

In addition, Belkin testified that generally, out of the four quarterly bonuses, two would have a zero value. He testified that the last quarterly bonus was in December, 2006, in the amount of $50,000. He also testified that their first quarterly bonus for 2007 was expected to be $20,000. Belkin went on to testify that the quarterly bonuses and fixed base rate were the only two forms of income received by each partner from the medical practice. He testified that the income of the partners has dropped by 4 to 5 percent during the past four to five years, starting in about 2004. On the third day of trial, the defendant testified that his annualized income, which included his bonuses, was $460,000. The defendant also testified that his current financial affidavit, which was submitted to the court on the first day of trial, consisted of financial data and expenses from 2005 because he did not have the expense information for 2006. He testified that he did not have the 2006 expenses because the paperwork for his taxes for 2006 was not yet completed. He acknowledged that some of the expenses for 2005 that were listed in his February 20, 2007 financial affidavit did not carry over into 2006. He testified, however, that he was unable to differentiate on his February 20,2007 financial affidavit which expenses were relevant solely to 2005 as opposed to 2006.

On the final day of trial, July 3, 2007, some three months later, the defendant submitted an updated financial affidavit for 2007, along with a revised statement of financial condition for 2007. Upon commencement of the final day of trial, the defendant testified that, in 2006, his annualized income was $460,000 but that his income for 2007, however, was significantly less. The defendant testified that his present financial earnings were $7700 biweekly with expenses consisting of a $7800 mortgage, $3000 a month for his children’s living expenses and weekly expenses for the home. The defendant testified that he was living from paycheck to paycheck. He further testified that his income in the past two years averaged $466,000 per year.

Also on the final day of trial, Kelly Poulin, the administrator for the medical practice, testified. She stated that revenue was declining because insurance companies were paying less for services. She also testified that if insurance payments were reduced, the medical practice would not have “the money to pay out in bonuses . . . just salary.” The court, in its memorandum of decision, found that the defendant’s annualized income was $484,000 and that his net weekly income was $6400.

The court noted that the defendant’s weekly income was 80 percent more than the plaintiffs net weekly income, which was $1303. The defendant argues that it was improper for the court to make such findings regarding his income because the numbers did not reflect the updated financial affidavit that was submitted on the last day of trial. He asserts that the court completely ignored the updated financial affidavit and did not offer a reason as to why it did so.

As previously noted, because we are reviewing the court’s factual findings as to the defendant’s income, we look to see whether the court’s findings are clearly erroneous, and we must affirm the court’s decision unless there is either no evidence to support the court’s findings or we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. After a careful review of the record, we cannot say that the court’s findings were clearly erroneous.

For comparison purposes, we refer to this court’s decision in Gervais v. Gervais, 91 Conn. App. 840, 882 A.2d 731, cert. denied, 276 Conn. 919, 888 A.2d 88 (2005). In Gervais, this court found an abuse of discretion when the trial court did not consider an updated financial affidavit submitted to it prior to a hearing on a motion to terminate alimony. Id., 845. The transcript in Gervais reflected that the defendant was extensively questioned on the updated financial affidavit during the hearing. Id. In response to a request for an articulation, the trial court twice commented that the defendant had failed to file an updated financial affidavit. Id. This court noted that a trial court should consider the present financial circumstances of the parties before entering financial orders relevant to a marital dissolution. Id., 845-48. Because the trial court’s articulation reflected that it did not consider the financial affidavit that clearly had been submitted to the trial court, this court found that the trial court abused its discretion and that its findings were erroneous. Id. Nonetheless, this court noted that had the trial court actually reviewed the amended financial affidavit, as the trier of fact, “it could have accepted or rejected the information contained therein.” Id., 848.

In the present case, the record does not reflect that the court improperly failed to consider a financial affidavit that was clearly before it. Here, the defendant failed to seek an articulation of whether the court considered his updated financial affidavit to determine his income. Any further review of the court’s failure to consider the updated financial affidavit for its findings would be speculative. As previously noted, great weight is given to the judgment of the trial court, and, absent any indication to the contrary, we presume that the court acted properly. Because the defendant did not move for an articulation of the court’s determination of his income pursuant to Practice Book § 66-5 and because there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s finding, we cannot conclude that the court’s finding was clearly erroneous.

IV

Last, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion when it ordered alimony to the plaintiff and distributed the parties’ assets to his detriment. The defendant argues that the court’s order of alimony and the distribution of assets are improper because they are based on improper factual findings made by the court. Specifically, the defendant references his arguments that we considered in parts I, II and III of this opinion, which were that the court improperly made factual findings as to the value of certain property and as to his income. We are unpersuaded.

“In fashioning its financial orders, the court has broad discretion, and [¡Judicial review of a trial court’s exercise of [this] broad discretion ... is limited to the questions of whether the . . . court correctly applied the law and could reasonably have concluded as it did. ... In making those determinations, we allow every reasonable presumption ... in favor of the correctness of [the trial court’s] action. . . . That standard of review reflects the sound policy that the trial court has the unique opportunity to view the parties and their testimony, and is therefore in the best position to assess all of the circumstances surrounding a dissolution action, including such factors as the demeanor and the attitude of the parties.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Mann v. Miller, 93 Conn. App. 809, 812, 890 A.2d 581 (2006).

As previously noted, “[i]n distributing the assets of the marital estate, the court is required by ... § 46b-81 to consider the estate of each of the parties. . . . [Section] 46b-81 (a) provides in relevant part: ‘At the time of entering a decree . . . dissolving a marriage . . . the Superior Court may assign to either the husband or wife all or any part of the estate of the other. . . .’ Courts are not required to ritualistically recite the criteria they considered, nor are they bound to any specific formula respecting the weight to be accorded each factor in determining the distribution of marital assets.” (Citation omitted; emphasis added.) Mann v. Miller, supra, 93 Conn. App. 812.

The defendant’s claim rests on the assertion that the court’s findings on the value of his interest in the medical practice, his property and his income were erroneous. As a result, the defendant argues that the court’s financial orders for alimony and a distribution of assets are also improper because the financial orders rest on erroneous findings. The defendant has crafted his argument premised on his belief as to the correct values of his assets and income. He asserts that when this court considers the proper values, as claimed in his brief, of his assets and income, the court’s financial orders result in negative net worth for the defendant of approximately $51,000. The defendant appears to assert that the court improperly formulated the distribution of assets and alimony. Specifically, the defendant argues that the record does not support the court’s orders. In light of our review of the entire record, we conclude that the record supports the court’s financial orders and that the court did not abuse its discretion.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       The other two children were older than twenty-three.

       Payments began retroactively dating back to May 29, 2007, in response to the plaintiffs motion for alimony pendente lite, filed on May 11, 2007.

       Payments would terminate earlier than 2022 if the plaintiff remarried, upon the death of either party or pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-86 (b).

       On the defendant’s February 20, 2007 financial affidavit, his net weekly income was $6400.

       On the defendant’s July 3,2007 financial affidavit, his net weekly income was $4513.

       The defendant originally briefed that his negative net worth was $96,750. In oral argument to this court, however, the defendant corrected that figure and argued, instead, that the financial orders resulted in a negative net worth of $51,000.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: BEACH, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    D’AMATO INVESTMENTS, LLC v. DAVID SUTTON
    (AC 29516)
    Gruendel, Harper and Beach, Js.

      Argued May 19
    officially released September 29, 2009

      Eric H. Opin, with whom was James W. Walsh, for the appellant (plaintiff).

      Jonathan J. Klein, for the appellee (defendant).
   Opinion

BEACH, J.

This case involves the interpretation of a commercial lease and a personal guarantee of that lease. The plaintiff, D’Amato Investments, LLC, brought this action against the defendant, David Sutton, to recover the amount allegedly due under a commercial lease between the plaintiff and Chimaera, Inc. (Chimaera), pursuant to a guarantee signed by the defendant. The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly failed to find that the defendant is liable for (1) the unpaid amounts owed by Chimaera for the period subsequent to the expiration of the lease and (2) select unpaid amounts owed by Chimaera for the period prior to the expiration of the lease. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts are relevant to our resolution of the plaintiffs appeal. Chimaera entered into a commercial lease with Louis J. D’Amato and John C. D’Amato for a property in Milford. The lease originally was to expire on February 28, 2002. It subsequently was expended through February 28,2005, pursuant to a written extension. The defendant, who was the president of Chimaera at the time the lease was entered into, also signed a guarantee in which he personally guaranteed Chimaera’s obligations under the lease.

On June 11, 1998, the D’Amatos assigned their interests in the lease to the plaintiff. In January, 2004, the defendant’s employment with Chimaera was terminated. In early 2004, Chimaera began to pay rent sporadically. Payment lapses continued after the expiration of the lease term on February 28, 2005, at which time Chimaera remained in the space it rented from the plaintiff pursuant to a holdover clause in the lease. The plaintiff instituted an eviction action against Chimaera; Chimaera vacated the space and returned possession to the plaintiff in September, 2005. For much of 2004 and 2005, Chimaera accrued significant amounts owed to the plaintiff for unpaid rent, fees for late payment of rent and holdover charges.

The plaintiff brought the present action against the defendant to enforce the guarantee and to recover the amounts owed to the plaintiff by Chimaera. Following a hearing, the court filed a “notice of judgment,” which included a brief explanation of its decision. It found in favor of the defendant on the ground that the guarantee expired on February 28, 2005, the date the extended lease term expired. The court also stated that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden as to liability for unpaid rent and other charges prior to February 28, 2005, and that the plaintiff had presented no information on whether the amounts owed by Chimaera had been discharged in bankruptcy.

The plaintiff filed this appeal, claiming that the court improperly determined that (1) the guarantee expired on February 28, 2005, and (2) the plaintiff failed to meet its burden regarding damages prior to February 28, 2005.

I

We must first address the issue of standing. “The issue of standing implicates the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction and therefore presents a threshold issue for our determination. ” New Hartford v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, 291 Conn. 511, 518, 970 A.2d 583 (2009).

The defendant claims that the plaintiff lacks standing to enforce the guarantee because the plaintiff is not a party to the guarantee. The defendant argues that although the lease was assigned from Louis J. D’Amato and John C. D’Amato to the plaintiff, the guarantee itself was never assigned to the plaintiff. The defendant correctly points out that the “assignment of lease” did not explicitly incorporate or mention the guarantee signed by the defendant. The language of the assignment, however, does not by itself govern our resolution of the issue. We also turn to the language of the guarantee.

The guarantee states the following in relevant part: “[T]he undersigned guarantees to Landlord, Landlord’s successors and assigns, the full performance and observance of all covenants, conditions and agreements, therein provided to be performed and observed by Tenant . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Our resolution of the issue of standing depends on whether the plaintiff was a successor or assignee to Louis J. D’Amato and John C. D’Amato under the guarantee.

This court faced a similar issue in Hudson United Bank v. Endeavor Group, 96 Conn. App. 447, 901 A.2d 64 (2006). In that case, the plaintiff brought suit to enforce a guarantee signed by the defendant, an individual who was a partner of Endeavor Group, another defendant. Id., 448. The original beneficiary of the guarantee was Westport Bank and Trust Company. Id., 449. After the guarantee was executed, the beneficiary ultimately merged with the plaintiff, which assumed all assets and liabilities of the beneficiary. Id., 449. The relevant language of the guarantee provided that “[t]his guarantiee] shall inure to the benefit of [the beneficiary], its successors, legal representatives and assigns.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 453. We concluded that the guarantee continued to benefit Hudson, the successor of the original beneficiary. Id.

The language in the guarantee in the present case is functionally identical to the previously quoted language. Similarly, the plaintiff was assigned Chimaera’s lease from the original beneficiaries of the guarantee. The plaintiff was a successor or assignee of Louis J. D’Amato and John C. D’Amato under the guarantee and, therefore, has standing to enforce the guarantee.

II

We now address the plaintiffs claims on appeal. The plaintiff first claims that the court improperly concluded that the guarantee expired on February 28,2005. We disagree.

The guarantee stated in relevant part: “[T]his guarantee] shall remain and continue in full force and effect as to any renewal, modification or extension of this Lease and during any period in which Tenant is occupying the premises as a ‘statutory tenant.’ ” The parties do not dispute that the guarantee remained in effect during the extension of the lease ending on February 28, 2005. Rather, our resolution of this claim turns on the issue of whether Chimaera was a “statutory tenant” during the period between the time the lease expired on February 28, 2005, and the time it vacated the premises in September, 2005.

A guarantee is a contract. Garofalo v. Squillante, 60 Conn. App. 687, 694, 760 A.2d 1271 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 929, 767 A.2d 101 (2001). The plaintiffs claim requires us to examine the terms of the guarantee. “The question of the parties’ intent is [ojrdinarily ... a question of fact [subject to appellate review under the clearly erroneous standard], ... If, however, the language of the contract is clear and unambiguous, the court’s determination of what the parties intended in using such language is a conclusion of law. ... In such a situation our scope of review is plenary, and is not limited by the clearly erroneous standard. . . . Thus, in the absence of a claim of ambiguity, the interpretation of [a] contract presents a question of law. . . . Well established principles guide our analysis in determining whether the language of a contract is ambiguous. [A] contract is ambiguous if the intent of the parties is not clear and certain from the language of the contract itself. [A]ny ambiguity in a contract must emanate from the language used by the parties. . . . In contrast, [a] contract is unambiguous when its language is clear and conveys a definite and precise intent. . . . The court will not torture words to impart ambiguity where ordinary meaning leaves no room for ambiguity. . . . Moreover, the mere fact that the parties advance different interpretations of the language in question does not necessitate a conclusion that the language is ambiguous.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Smithfield Associates, LLC v. Tolland Bank, 86 Conn. App. 14, 18-19, 860 A.2d 738 (2004), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 901, 867 A.2d 839 (2005).

Accordingly, to determine our standard of review, we must first ascertain whether the pertinent language of the guarantee is ambiguous. The term “statutory tenant” is not defined in the lease or the guarantee. It appears to have no legal meaning in this state, whose law governs this contract. The pertinent language of the guarantee is ambiguous at best, and, therefore, our review of this claim is governed by the clearly erroneous standard.

The court at first concluded in its notice of judgment that “the personal guarantiee] expired on February 28, 2005.” In its articulation on this issue, the court stated that “[t]he extension ended February 28, 2005; therefore, the guarant[ee] ended February 28, 2005.” The court also noted that the term “statutory tenant” was not defined in the lease. Necessary to and implicit in the court’s decision was the finding that the plaintiff had not satisfied its burden to show that Chimaera was a “statutory tenant” between February 28 and September, 2005.

As the court noted, the term “statutory tenant” is not defined in the lease. As we noted previously, it is not defined in the guarantee. We have not found any Connecticut case law interpreting this term, nor has the plaintiff presented any before us. It does not appear in the General Statutes. The court heard testimony from the defendant and representatives of the plaintiff. None of the witnesses testified as to the meaning of the term or the parties’ understanding of the term. There was evidence that the terms of the guarantee, including the clause encompassing the “statutory tenant” term, were not negotiated between the parties. Accordingly, the court’s conclusions that the plaintiff had not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Chimaera was a “statutory tenant” after its lease expired and that the guarantee expired on February 28, 2005, were not clearly erroneous.

Ill

The plaintiff also claims that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof regarding damages for unpaid rent prior to February 28, 2005. We disagree.

“[T]he trial court has broad discretion in determining damages. . . . The determination of damages involves a question of fact that will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous. . . . [W]hether the decision of the trial court is clearly erroneous . . . involves a two part function: where the legal conclusions of the court are challenged, we must determine whether they are legally and logically correct and whether they find support in the facts set out in the memorandum of decision; where the factual basis of the court’s decision is challenged we must determine whether the facts set out in the memorandum of decision are supported by the evidence or whether, in light of the evidence and the pleadings in the whole record, those facts are clearly erroneous. ... In a case tried before a court, the trial judge is the sole arbiter of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given specific testimony. ... On appeal, we will give the evidence the most favorable reasonable construction in support of the verdict to which it is entitled. ... A factual finding may be rejected by this court only if it is clearly erroneous. ... A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Schatz & Schatz, Ribicoff & Kotkin, 247 Conn. 48, 68-69, 717 A.2d 724 (1998).

In support of its claim that the defendant was liable under the guarantee for the unpaid rent owed by Chimaera prior to February 28,2005, the plaintiff submitted as exhibit five a history of charges and payments received from Chimaera between July, 2004, and August, 2005. The court also heard testimony from the defendant, Louis J. D’Amato and from Jill Krakovich, who was the plaintiffs property manager. Krakovich testified as to the individual figures presented in exhibit five. In the notice of judgment, the court stated that it “has reviewed the evidence and assessed the credibility of the witnesses” and found that “the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof as to the liability for unpaid rent prior to February 28, 2005.” The court specifically referenced exhibit five in its articulation when it stated the following: “[Exhibit five] indicates [that] there may [be] two months unpaid in 2004 (July and August). However, [Louis J.] D’Amato did not specify which payments he had forgiven prior to [February 28, 2005].”

Exhibit five shows that Chimaera owed the plaintiff a total of $54,954.38 for rent, late charges, holdover charges and late charges on the holdover charges for the period between July, 2004, and August, 2005. Of that total amount owed, $25,865.52 was owed for the period prior to February 28, 2005. It also shows that the plaintiff received payments in the amount of $28,814,78 between September, 2004, and July, 2005. Of the total amount received by the plaintiff, $16,165.95 was received prior to February 28, 2005. It is unclear from exhibit five and the testimony at the hearing whether the total amount received applied to the amount owed prior to February 28, 2005, the debt accrued after, or both. If some amounts received by the plaintiff after February 28, 2005, were applied to the debt accrued prior to February 28, 2005, the defendant’s obligations under the guarantee would have been extinguished. In any event, the court’s conclusion that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden to prove damages for amounts owed by Chimaera prior to February 28, 2005, was not clearly erroneous.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       Chimaera, Inc., was later added as a defendant by way of an amended complaint filed by the plaintiff. Sutton subsequently impleaded Chimaera, Inc., as a third party defendant. For the purpose of this appeal, however, we refer to Sutton as the defendant.

       In the text of the guarantee, “Landlord” refers to Louis J. D’Amato and John C. D’Amato, “undersigned” refers to the defendant and “Tenant” refers to Chimaera.

       The merger documents apparently did not specifically assign the guarantee; they did assign all of he beneficiary’s assets and liabilities. Hudson United Bank v. Endeavor Group, supra, 96 Conn. App. 449.

       See footnote 2.

       The plaintiff also claims that attorney’s fees and costs should have been awarded pursuant to the terms of the lease. The court did not specifically address the issue of attorney’s fees and costs, and, because we affirm the court’s conclusions regarding the liability of the guarantor, we also do not reach this issue.


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    ALONZO MANSFIELD, JR. v. A & M AUTOMOTIVE
    (AC 29834)
    Harper, Lavine and Beach, Js.
    Argued May 26
    officially released September 29, 2009

      Mathew P. Jasinski, with whom were Ingrid L. Moll, and, on the brief, David Thomas Ryan, for the appellant (plaintiff).

      David E. Kamins, for the appellee (defendant).
   Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Alonzo Mansfield, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, A & M Automotive. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that the defendant did not violate General Statutes § 14-145a, (2) failed to find that the defendant was liable for conversion and (3) failed to find that the defendant’s actions constituted a violation of General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts, as found by the court, and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of the plaintiffs appeal. At all relevant times, the plaintiff lived at El Dorado Condominium Properties (El Dorado), a condominium complex located at 64 Congress Street in Hartford. El Dorado abutted a neighboring condominium complex, the Congress Street Apartments, which was owned by Red Brick Partners (Red Brick).

Red Brick and El Dorado shared use of a parking lot, and El Dorado had an arrangement with Red Brick such that Red Brick allowed El Dorado’s tenants to park in certain areas. These areas, however, were not plainly designated as such. Because the vehicles appeared to be unregistered, the defendant towed two of the plaintiffs vehicles on three separate occasions from spaces that Red Brick had agreed could be used by El Dorado tenants.

The plaintiff commenced this matter as a small claims action. It subsequently was transferred to the regular docket. The plaintiffs April, 2006 amended complaint alleged a violation of § 14-145a, conversion, statutory theft pursuant to General Statutes § 52-564 and a violation of CUTPA. Following a trial to the court, the court found in favor of the defendant on all four counts. This appeal followed.

The plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that the defendant did not violate § 14445a. Section 14445a (a) provides in relevant part: “No vehicle shall be towed or removed from private property except upon express instruction of the owner or lessee, or his agent, of the property upon which the vehicle is trespassing. . . .” He specifically argues that it was improper for the court not to find that Red Brick was not an owner or lessee of the property at issue and that Red Brick did not give the defendant its express instruction to tow the vehicles. We are not persuaded.

The court impliedly determined that the plaintiff had not met his burden of proving a violation of § 14-145a. Even if we were to assume, without deciding, that § 14-145a creates a private cause of action, the plaintiff cannot prevail on his claim. On the basis of our careful review of the record, we conclude that the plaintiff has not demonstrated that the court’s conclusion that he had not sustained his burden of proof under the statute was clearly erroneous. See Baretta v. T& T Structural, Inc., 42 Conn. App. 522, 527, 681 A.2d 359 (1996) (finding regarding burden of proof subject to clearly erroneous standard of review).

The plaintiff also claims that the court improperly failed to conclude that the defendant was liable for conversion and that the defendant’s actions constituted a violation of CUTPA. The plaintiffs arguments in this regard are premised on the notion that the court improperly failed to find that the defendant violated § 14-145a. Because we have concluded that it was not improper for the court to have declined to find that the defendant violated § 14-145a, the plaintiffs claims regarding the conversion and CUTPA counts must fail.

The judgment is affirmed.

       The court concluded, alternatively, that even if it were to assume that the defendant violated § 14-145a, General Statutes § 14-145c provides an exception from liability for improper tows done with the express instruction of an owner or lessee. The plaintiff argues that § 14-145c does not shield towing companies from liability under § 14-145a. Because we conclude that the court properly determined that the defendant was not liable under § 14-145a, we need not review the court’s alternate ground.

       Although § 14-145a does not expressly create a cause of action, under certain circumstances, statutes can implicitly create a private cause of action. See Windels v. Environmental Protection Commission, 284 Conn. 268, 933 A.2d 256 (2007). “[I]n determining whether a private remedy is implicit in a statute not expressly providing one, several factors are relevant. First, is the plaintiff one of the class for whose . . . benefit the statute was enacted . . . ? Second, is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one? . . . Third, is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff?” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 295.
      The parties have not raised the issue of whether § 14-145a creates a private cause of action. Because we conclude that in the context presented by the parties, the court did not err in concluding that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief under that statutory section, we need not address this issue.


text:
    BRENOR JOSEPH v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
    (AC 29731)
    Bishop, Gruendel and Pellegrino, Js.
    Argued May 18
    officially released September 29, 2009

      Christopher M. Neary, special public defender, for the appellant (petitioner).

      Lisa A. Riggione, senior assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state’s attorney, Donna Mambrino, senior assistant state’s attorney, and Erika L. Brookman, deputy assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
   Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, Brenor Joseph, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. That petition contained two counts alleging (1) that the petitioner was deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel at his criminal trial and (2) actual innocence. On appeal, he claims only that the court improperly determined that he received effective assistance of counsel. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

The following procedural history informs our disposition of the petitioner’s appeal. On September 17, 2003, the petitioner pleaded guilty under the Alford doctrine to sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2) and kidnapping in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-92 (a) (2). During that plea proceeding, the state made the following allegations. The petitioner was a friend of the victim’s family and, on or about November 1, 2001, began residing in the home of the then eleven year old victim. Twelve days after he moved into the house, the petitioner called the victim into his room, indicating that he had something in there for her to see. The victim followed the petitioner into the room, where the latter locked the door, put his hand over the victim’s mouth and forced her onto the bed. The petitioner then “pulled out his privates [and] spit on his hand, wiping his spit onto his privates” and attempted to penetrate the victim vaginally. He then threw the victim a towel and told her to “get cleaned up” and to leave the room. The victim reported that immediately after the incident there was “white gooey stuff’ between her legs.

After a prolonged colloquy between the trial court and the petitioner, the court found that the petitioner entered his plea knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently. It thereafter sentenced the petitioner to ten years incarceration on the kidnapping count and two years and one day incarceration followed by ten years special parole on the sexual assault count to be served consecutively. Thus, the petitioner received a total effective sentence of twelve years and one day incarceration followed by ten years of special parole.

On August 28, 2007, the petitioner filed a revised, amended petition for a writ of habeas coipus in which he claimed that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he was not guilty of the crimes to which he had pleaded guilty. Following the habeas trial, the court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the respondent, the commissioner of correction, as to the actual innocence claim. Thereafter, the court, by memorandum of decision, found in favor of the respondent on the remaining claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and, accordingly, denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court granted the petitioner certification to appeal, and this appeal followed.

We begin by setting forth our well established standard of review for addressing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. “In a habeas appeal, this court cannot disturb the underlying facts found by the habeas court unless they are clearly erroneous, but our review of whether the facts as found by the habeas court constituted a violation of the petitioner’s constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel is plenary. . . . The habeas judge, as the trier of facts, is the sole arbiter of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Necaise v. Commissioner of Correction, 112 Conn. App. 817, 820, 964 A.2d 562, cert. denied, 292 Conn. 911, 973 A.2d 660 (2009).

I

With that standard in mind, we first address the petitioner’s challenges to the factual findings of the habeas court. He asserts that the court made several erroneous factual determinations that affected its conclusion that he was represented by effective counsel. First, he challenges the finding that “the doctor confirmed that the petitioner had [had] sex with [the victim] . . . .” The petitioner bases his assertion that the court’s finding is clearly erroneous on the report from the laboratory analysis of vaginal swabs taken from the victim. That report concluded that the results were inconclusive as to whether the petitioner was a contributor to the DNA profile contained in the swab. The court acknowledged as much in its memorandum of decision. At the habeas trial, however, the victim’s father testified that after the incident in question, he brought his daughter to a hospital. He stated that the treating physician confirmed that “[the petitioner had had] sex with my daughter.” It is clear from the context of the court’s finding and from the father’s testimony that the physician merely concluded that the victim had been engaged in sexual activity. The conclusion that the petitioner was the perpetrator was based on the accusations of the victim and the other members of her family. Thus, the court’s finding is not clearly erroneous.

The petitioner also claims that the court improperly found that he was not working on the day of the incident and that the case against him was strong. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that those findings are supported by evidence introduced at the habeas trial. Thus, those findings are not clearly erroneous.

II

We next address whether the facts found by the court support its conclusion that the petitioner was not deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel. “[T]he governing legal principles in cases involving claims of ineffective assistance of counsel arising in connection with guilty pleas are set forth in [Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984)] and [Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S. Ct. 366, 88 L. Ed. 2d 203 (1985)]. In Strickland, which applies to claims of ineffective assistance during criminal proceedings generally, the United States Supreme Court determined that the claim must be supported by evidence establishing that (1) counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defense because there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different had it not been for the deficient performance. Strickland v. Washington, [supra, 688, 694], The first prong requires a showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed the defendant by the [s]ixth [ajmendment. Id., 687. Under the test in Hill, in which the United States Supreme Court modified the prejudice prong of the Strickland test for claims of ineffective assistance when the conviction resulted from a guilty plea, the evidence must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, [the petitioner] would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Hill v. Lockhart, [supra, 59].” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, 285 Conn. 585, 598, 940 A.2d 789 (2008).

The petitioner claims that his trial counsel inadequately advised him as to the length of time he could serve in prison if the case went to trial and the length of time he would serve if he pleaded guilty. He also asserts that his counsel did not adequately advise him or investigate to determine the strength of the state’s case. Our searching review of the record, however, leads us to conclude that the court properly determined that the petitioner did not meet his burden to show that but for the performance of counsel, he would not have pleaded guilty or that there would have been a different result. See Varchetta v. Commissioner of Correction, 104 Conn. App. 357, 360, 933 A.2d 1224, cert. denied, 285 Conn. 902,938 A.2d 594 (2007). Therefore, he failed to meet his burden of establishing prejudice under the Strickland-Hill test.

The judgment is affirmed.

       “Under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970), a criminal defendant is not required to admit his guilt . . . but consents to being punished as if he were guilty to avoid the risk of proceeding to trial. . . . A guilty plea under the Alford doctrine is a judicial oxymoron in that the defendant does not admit guilt but acknowledges that the state’s evidence against him is so strong that he is prepared to accept the entry of a guilty plea nevertheless.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Stevens, 278 Conn. 1, 3 n.2, 895 A.2d 771 (2006).

       In accordance with our policy of protecting the privacy interests of the victims of sexual assault, we decline to identify the victim or others through whom the victim’s identity may be ascertained. See General Statutes § 54-86e.

       In light of our conclusion that the petitioner has not demonstrated prejudice, we need not determine whether counsel’s alleged failures constituted deficient representation. See Pierce v. Commissioner of Correction, 100 Conn. App. 1, 12 n.5, 916 A.2d 864, cert. denied, 282 Conn. 908, 920 A.2d 1017 (2007).


author: MIHALAKOS, J. BISHOP, J.,

text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. KWEKU HANSON
    (AC 29623)
    Bishop, Harper and Mihalakos, Js.

      Argued May 27
    officially released October 6, 2009

      Kweku Hanson, pro se, the appellant (defendant).

      Timothy F. Costello, deputy assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state’s attorney, and Thomas J. O’Brien, senior assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).
   Opinion

MIHALAKOS, J.

The defendant, Kweku Hanson, appeals from the trial court’s judgments of conviction, which were rendered following the denial of his motion, filed pursuant to Practice Book § 39-27, to withdraw his pleas of guilty under three separate criminal docket numbers to two counts of sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 53a-71 (a) (1), two counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 53-21 (a) (2), one count of possession of child pornography in the first degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 53a-196d and two counts of tampering with a witness in violation of General Statutes § 53a-151. On appeal, the defendant claims that by denying his motions to withdraw his guilty pleas, the court abused its discretion because his pleas were made unknowingly and involuntarily. In support of that claim, the defendant argues that (1) the court’s plea canvass was defective because it did not substantially comply with Practice Book §§ 39-19 and 39-20, 6(2) his attorney rendered ineffective assistance at the hearing on his motion to withdraw the pleas by not allowing the defendant to testify and, subsequently, that the court should have conducted, sua sponte, an evidentiary inquiry at that hearing, and (3) the existence of several other pretrial constitutional violations rendered the pleas involuntary. We disagree and conclude that the defendant’s pleas were made knowingly and voluntarily. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our disposition of the defendant’s appeal. The defendant, who was more than forty years old at the time of the offenses, was charged with several crimes stemming from sexual relationships with a fifteen year old female, A, and her fourteen year old female cousin, B, between August, 2004, and September, 2005. The defendant practiced law in Connecticut for eighteen years. He came in contact with the two victims through his law practice. During the course of those relationships, the defendant videotaped himself having sexual intercourse with A at his law office and took sexually provocative photographs of both victims.

In September, 2005, the defendant reported to the police that his videocamera had been stolen from his motor vehicle. The person who had taken the camera was located, and she told police that she had seen what she believed to be child pornography on the video. The video was later identified as portraying the defendant having sexual intercourse with one of the victims, A. The police seized the defendant’s camera and executed subsequent search warrants at the defendant’s law office. The police discovered traces of semen on the defendant’s carpet consistent with the sexual activities depicted in the videos, as well as more than fifty explicit photographs of the two victims on the defendant’s computer.

Meanwhile, as the case that charged the defendant with sexual assault of B was pending, the defendant stayed in contact with B and her older sister, with whom he also had a sexual relationship. Over the course of this period, he threatened B and her sister and offered them money to set up an apartment if they would retract their statements to police. A did, at one point, retract her statement to police.

On July 25, 2007, the prosecutor informed the court that he and the defendant had engaged in plea discussions and were close to a plea agreement. The defendant affirmed to the court that this was true and asked for a continuance to consider the offer. The court granted a continuance with the understanding that the following court proceeding would be for the entry of pleas or to proceed to trial. The court then canvassed the defendant, who was acting pro se, and found that he was qualified to represent himself.

At his next court appearance, on August 2, 2007, the defendant pleaded guilty under three separate criminal docket numbers to two counts of sexual assault in the second degree, two counts of risk of injury to a child, two counts of tampering with a witness and one count of possession of child pornography in the first degree. His plea agreement included special terms of probation. The state offered a recommendation to the court for a total effective sentence of twenty-five years incarceration, suspended after six years, and thirty years of probation. The court again canvassed the defendant and accepted his pleas as being made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily, and with knowledge that he had voluntarily waived his right to counsel.

On September 17,2007, prior to sentencing, the defendant, again representing himself, filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, as well as an affidavit in support of the motion. The defendant eventually hired counsel, who submitted a substitute motion on October 19,2007, claiming that the court’s plea canvass was defective, pursuant to Practice Book §§ 39-19 (2), (3), (4) and 39-20. The defendant’s attorney did not incorporate the motion that the defendant filed pro se. On October 26, 2007, represented by counsel, the defendant argued that the court’s plea canvass failed to comply substantially with Practice Book §§ 39-19 and 39-20 because the court failed (1) to address the mandatory minimum sentence, if any, (2) to notify the defendant that some of the sentences were nonsuspendable, (3) to notify the defendant of the maximum possible sentence for each charge and (4) to determine whether the defendant’s pleas resulted from prior discussions with the prosecutor. The court orally denied the defendant’s motion, affirmed that the court’s canvass of the defendant was in substantial compliance with Practice Book § 39-19, determined that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily made and that it was based on a factual predicate.

On November 2, 2007, the defendant was sentenced pursuant to the plea agreement to a total effective term of twenty-five years incarceration, suspended after six years, and thirty years of probation. This appeal followed. Additional facts and procedural history will be provided as necessary.

I

The defendant’s first claim is that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his pleas because the court’s plea canvass failed to satisfy the requirements of Practice Book §§ 39-19 (2), (3), (4) and 39-20. The defendant claims that the court failed to ensure that he understood the minimum and maximum sentences on each charge, that each sexual assault charge carried a nonsuspendable sentence and that his pleas were a result of discussions with the prosecutor. We disagree.

As a preliminary matter, we identify the legal principles and the applicable standard of review that governs our examination of the defendant’s claims. “[I]t is axiomatic that unless a plea of guilty is made knowingly and voluntarily, it has been obtained in violation of due process and is therefore voidable. ... A plea of guilty is, in effect, a conviction, the equivalent of a guilty verdict by a jury. ... In choosing to plead guilty, the defendant is waiving several constitutional rights, including his privilege against self-incrimination, his right to trial by jury, and his right to confront his accusers. . . . The . . . constitutional essentials for the acceptance of a plea of guilty are included in our rules and are reflected in Practice Book [§§ 39-19 and 39-20]. . . . The failure to inform a defendant as to all possible indirect and collateral consequences does not render a plea unintelligent or involuntary in a constitutional sense.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reid, 277 Conn. 764, 780, 894 A.2d 963 (2006).

“Before a guilty plea is accepted a defendant may withdraw it as a matter of right. Practice Book [§ 39-26]. After a guilty plea is accepted but before the imposition of sentence the court is obligated to permit withdrawal upon proof of one of the grounds in [Practice Book § 39-27]. . . . The burden is always on the defendant to show a plausible reason for the withdrawal of a plea of guilty. ... To warrant consideration, the defendant must allege and provide facts which justify permitting him to withdraw his plea under [Practice Book § 39-27].” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Barnwell, 102 Conn. App. 255, 258-59, 925 A.2d 1106 (2007). “Whether such proof is made is a question for the court in its sound discretion, and a denial of permission to withdraw is reversible only if that discretion has been abused.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gundel, 56 Conn. App. 805, 812, 746 A.2d 204, cert. denied, 253 Conn. 906, 753 A.2d 941 (2000).

Our courts repeatedly have held that “only substantial compliance is required when warning the defendant of the direct consequences of a . . . plea pursuant to Practice Book § 39-19 in order to ensure that the plea is voluntary pursuant to Practice Book § 39-20.” State v. Malcolm, 257 Conn. 653, 662, 778 A.2d 134 (2001), citing State v. Ocasio, 253 Conn. 375, 380, 751 A.2d 825 (2000). “[A]s determined in a case-by-case evaluation, only substantial compliance with those rules of practice is necessary to arrive at the conclusion that the defendant’s pleas were made knowingly and voluntarily . . . .” State v. Irala, 68 Conn. App. 499, 510-11, 792 A.2d 109, cert. denied, 260 Conn. 923, 797 A.2d 519 (2002).

To determine whether a court substantially has complied with Practice Book § 39-19, we must consider “whether accurate information would have made any difference in [a defendant’s] decision to enter [a] plea.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Irala, supra, 68 Conn. App. 511, quoting State v. Domian, 235 Conn. 679, 688, 668 A.2d 1333 (1996). In applying the substantial compliance test, courts look to the record for evidence that a defendant was aware of the elements of his plea and knowingly entered that plea. See State v. Irala, supra, 512. Our review of the transcript leads us to conclude that the plea canvass substantially complied with our rules of practice. The defendant, when asked, “[d]o you understand the range of penalties, including the maximum and minimum penalties?” replied, “Yes, Your Honor, I do.”

Although the defendant was not explicitly apprised of the exact statutory penalties, our Supreme Court has consistently held that such specificity is not required. “[T]he constitutional mandate is not strict adherence to [Practice Book § 39-19 (2)] but, rather, an understanding by the defendant of the actual sentencing possibilities.” State v. Domian, supra, 235 Conn. 689. That a court expressly failed to inform a defendant of a mandatory minimum sentence “alone is not dispositive of the defendant’s constitutional claim. We must determine, instead, whether, in light of all the circumstances evident from the record before us, the trial court’s failure to inform the defendant of the statutorily required minimum sentence rendered his guilty plea unknowing or involuntary.” Id., 687-88.

There is nothing in the record to indicate that the defendant’s pleas were the result of a defective canvass. The defendant’s familiarity with the statutes to which he pleaded guilty and his qualifications as an attorney were similarly canvassed. The court asked the defendant if he was familiar with the substantive law, to which he replied, “Yes.” The court then followed up and asked if the defendant was “familiar with the range of penalties involved and the charges in this case,” to which he replied, “Yes, I am.” “Although some form of meaningful dialogue is preferable to monosyllabic responses by the defendant, we have never held that single-word responses require an automatic vacation of a guilty plea.” State v. Torres, 182 Conn. 176, 179-80, 438 A.2d 46 (1980). “[I]t is well established that [a] trial court may properly rely on . . . the response of the [defendant] at the time [she] responded to the trial court’s plea canvass . . . .” State v. Stith, 108 Conn. App. 126, 131, 946 A.2d 1274, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 905, 957 A.2d 874 (2008). The record shows that the defendant entered his plea knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily, and, therefore, his claim, pursuant to Practice Book § 39-19 (2), must fail.

Similarly, the defendant’s claim that he was unaware that the two charges of sexual assault in the second degree carried nonsuspendable sentences is unavailing. The defendant was canvassed regarding the range of penalties on both July 25 and August 2, 2007, upon which he affirmed three separate times that he was, in fact, aware of the range of penalties in this case. There is no evidence in the record that the defendant was unaware of the applicable statutory penalties or that such ambiguity, if any existed, would have made a difference in his decision to plead guilty. Therefore, the defendant’s claims pursuant to Practice Book § 39-19 (3) must fail.

Likewise, the defendant’s claim that the court abused its discretion pursuant to Practice Book § 39-19 (4) by failing to canvass him regarding the potential maximum sentence for each individual charge must also fail. Our Supreme Court has stated that Practice Book § 39-19 (4) is an “express recognition [t]hat the defendant’s awareness of the maximum sentence possible is an essential factor in determining whether to plead guilty .... The length of time a defendant may have to spend in prison is clearly crucial to a decision of whether or not to plead guilty .... Accordingly, Practice Book § 711 [now § 39-19 (4)] requirefs] that the court determine that the defendant fully understands those consequences.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. James, 197 Conn. 358, 363, 497 A.2d 402 (1985).

In determining whether there has been substantial compliance with Practice Book § 39-19 (4), we review the record to determine whether (1) the court accepted the defendant’s pleas after determining that he was aware of and understood the maximum possible sentence to which he was exposed on each charge and whether, (2) if the court failed to ensure that the defendant understood, that he had actual knowledge of the maximum possible consequences of his pleas. See State v. James, supra, 197 Conn. 364. If either prong is satisfied, then the guilty pleas substantially complied with Practice Book § 39-19 (4). Here, the defendant entered his pleas of guilty to multiple charges. When a defendant enters pleas to multiple charges, the plea canvass must ensure that he understands both the maximum possible sentence for each individual charge, and the maximum possible sentence from consecutive sentences. See Practice Book § 39-19 (4). In discharging its obligations under Practice Book § 39-19, however, the court’s inquiry “need not be so restricted that the [j]udge [must] mount the bench with a script in his hand . . . and although not a script ... all of the necessary lines [were] delivered.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. James, supra, 363-64.

Our review of the record reveals that the court fulfilled its obligations under Practice Book § 39-19 (4). A court is permitted to rely on a defendant’s responses during a plea canvass. See State v. Johnson, 253 Conn. 1, 40, 751 A.2d 298 (2000). The defendant was asked on three separate occasions if he understood the range of penalties, and each time he responded in the affirmative. The defendant was also asked if he understood the minimum and maximum penalties involved, and he responded, “Yes, Your Honor, I do.” Furthermore, during the August 2, 2007 plea appearance, the defendant was given a twenty minute recess to confer with an attorney to discuss the plea agreement. The defendant, an attorney himself for eighteen years, had prior experience representing criminal defendants and affirmed that he was familiar with both the substantive law and the law of evidence in relation to this case. Finally, the defendant faced a consecutive sentence term of up to 100 years in prison for the crimes to which he pleaded guilty, as well as exposure to indictment by the federal government, which carried a potential mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years imprisonment.

The record offers no evidence that the defendant was unaware of the potential maximum sentence involved or that he would have chosen to turn down an offer of six years incarceration to face the aforementioned considerable exposure. We conclude on the basis of the record that the court’s plea canvass substantially complied with Practice Book § 39-19 (4).

Last, the defendant claims, pursuant to Practice Book § 39-20, that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas because they were involuntary. Specifically, the defendant claims that the court failed to determine whether his pleas resulted from prior discussions between the prosecutor and the defendant or his counsel pursuant to Practice Book § 39-20. We disagree.

On July 25, 2007, the court questioned the defendant regarding a pending plea offer for an “agreed upon recommendation” by the state, to which the defendant replied, “I need time to think about it. I talked to . . . the prosecutor and explained to him, as I have done, consistently, this particular offer involves some time. I need to talk to my family. My wife is here. But I need some time, please.” On August, 25, 2007, the court referenced the offer three times, and later during that hearing, the defendant specifically stated that he wanted to plead guilty and have the court accept his guilty pleas. The record clearly demonstrates that the defendant’s pleas were voluntary and resulted from his prior discussions with the prosecutor. Accordingly, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendant’s motion on those grounds.

II

The defendant’s second claim is that (1) his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel at the October 26, 2007 hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty pleas because counsel failed to allow the defendant to testify and to present evidence, and (2) the court should have, sua sponte, conducted an evidentiary hearing. We find that the record is inadequate to conclude that the court abused its discretion by denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his pleas and, further, that the court did not abuse its discretion by choosing not to conduct, sua sponte, an evidentiary hearing. We will address each claim in turn.

A

The defendant claims that his attorney was ineffective in failing to present the defendant’s testimony at the hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty pleas. We do not reach the merits of this claim, as the record before us is inadequate for our review. See Flater v. Grace, 291 Conn. 410, 420, 969 A.2d 157 (2009) (“as a general matter, the defendant is not entitled to appellate review of claims that were not raised in the trial court or on which there is an inadequate record”). The defendant’s claim would be more appropriately raised through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The following additional facts are necessary to our discussion of the defendant’s claim.

On October 26, 2007, the defendant was represented by counsel for the purpose of a hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty pleas. Counsel for the defendant argued in favor of the motion, submitting to the court that it should evaluate the defendant’s claims on the basis of the transcript from the August 2, 2007 plea proceeding. The court inquired of the defendant’s counsel, “You’re not—no evidence?” Counsel replied, “I’m not offering any evidence, Judge. No.” The defendant’s counsel later indicated to the court that the defendant wanted to testify; however, counsel did not want to put the defendant on the witness stand.

Typically, ineffective assistance of counsel claims arise from alleged constitutional defects that occur prior to a defendant’s plea, not from alleged ineffective assistance during a hearing on a motion to withdraw that plea. We have held that claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel should be presented by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because there can be an evidentiary hearing disclosing whether considerations of trial strategy were involved, and the counsel whose conduct is questioned will have an opportunity to testify. State v. McSwain, 105 Conn. App. 258, 277, 938 A.2d 595, cert. denied, 286 Conn. 915, 945 A.2d 978 (2008). In addition, such a claim may also require expert testimony regarding the quality of trial counsel's conduct. See, e.g., Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 34 Conn. App. 153, 158, 640 A.2d 1007, cert. denied, 229 Conn. 919, 644 A.2d 914 (1994). Without a full evidentiary hearing, we are unable to evaluate the defendant’s factual challenges to the conduct of his trial counsel.

The defendant’s primary grievance with his attorney’s performance is that his attorney did not allow him to testify and that his attorney failed to incorporate the defendant’s pro se motion and attached exhibits into the October 26, 2007 proceedings. It is not within this court’s purview to speculate as to the litigation strategies employed by the defendant or his attorney. There is no evidence in the record on which to support a claim that the strategies employed by the defendant’s attorney had any bearing on the outcome of the October 26, 2007 hearing on the defendant’s motion to withdraw his pleas. A petition for habeas corpus is the appropriate forum for such a hearing. We decline, therefore, to consider this claim.

B

The defendant next claims that the court abused its discretion by failing to conduct, sua sponte, an eviden-tiary hearing on the enforceability of his guilty pleas. We disagree.

An evidentiary hearing is not required if the record of the plea proceeding and other information in the court file conclusively establishes that the motion is without merit. See State v. Johnson, supra, 253 Conn. 50. The burden is on the defendant to show a plausible reason for the withdrawal of a plea of guilty. State v. Crenshaw, 210 Conn. 304, 309, 554 A.2d 1074 (1989). To warrant consideration, the defendant must allege and provide facts that justify permitting him to withdraw his plea under Practice Book § 39-27. See State v. Johnson, supra, 51. In the present case, the defendant set forth insufficient facts to require an evidentiary hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and, therefore, failed to satisfy his burden. The defendant’s counsel, in his motion to withdraw the guilty pleas, failed to set forth facts supporting his legal assertions and failed to advance any specific grounds as to why the pleas were unknowing or involuntary.

Additionally, the defendant’s assertion that his pleas were not made voluntarily and intelligently contradicts the detailed plea canvass conducted by the court, in which the defendant expressly stated that he understood the implications of his plea, that he was qualified to represent himself in preparing to plea and that he had entered his guilty pleas voluntarily. See id., 52. In light of the comprehensive canvass conducted by the court; see, e.g., footnotes 7 and 8 of this opinion; and our previous conclusion that the defendant’s plea was entered voluntarily with full knowledge of its consequences, the defendant’s bare and unsupported assertion in support of his motion did not warrant an evidentiary hearing. See State v. Johnson, supra, 52.

Moreover, the court indicated its willingness to consider evidence if the defendant and his counsel wanted to present any. The court asked defense counsel, “You’re not—no evidence?” Defense counsel stated in reply, “I’m not offering any evidence, Judge. No.” Although the court had no responsibility to require the presentation of evidence in this case, the decision to forgo an evidentiary hearing rested squarely on the shoulders of the defendant. Defense counsel, for reasons absent from the record, chose not to present evidence. The defendant cannot prevail on a claim that the court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the basis of his attorney’s representation that no evidence would be presented.

Accordingly, the court acted within the legitimate bounds of its discretion by not conducting an eviden-tiary hearing, sua sponte, regarding the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.

Ill

Finally, the defendant asserts numerous nonjurisdic-tional claims regarding defects that he alleged occurred during the police investigation and pretrial process. The defendant claims that these constitutional violations rendered his pleas involuntary. We decline to review the merits of these claims.

Foremost, we find that the defendant’s brief is inadequate in its legal arguments and recitation of facts necessary to sustain his constitutional contentions. “[F]or this court judiciously and efficiently to consider claims of error raised on appeal . . . the parties must clearly and fully set forth their arguments in their briefs. We do not reverse the judgment of a trial court on the basis of challenges to its rulings that have not been adequately briefed. . . . The parties may not merely cite a legal principle without analyzing the relationship between the facts of the case and the law cited. . . . Where the parties cite no law and provide no analysis of their claims, we do not review such claims.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Marlow v. Starkweather, 113 Conn. App. 469, 472, 966 A.2d 770 (2009).

While the defendant represented himself, he was a member of the Connecticut bar and worked as an attorney for eighteen years. Although the defendant’s pro se status deserves some solicitude, “the statutes and rules of practice cannot be ignored completely.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bennings v. Dept. of Correction, 59 Conn. App. 83, 84, 756 A.2d 289 (2000). The defendant’s extensive list of nonjurisdictional, constitutional claims lack the specificity and adherence to the rules of practice required for this court effectively to grant each claim serious consideration. Nonetheless, we will address, generally, the defendant’s nonjurisdictional claims.

“It is well established that an unconditional plea of guilty, made intelligently and voluntarily, operates as a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects and bars the later assertion of constitutional challenges to pretrial proceedings.” State v. Johnson, supra, 253 Conn. 80. “[A] guilty plea represents a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the criminal process. When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.” Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S. Ct. 1602, 36 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1973).

“In general, the only allowable challenges after a plea are those relating either to the voluntary and intelligent nature of the plea or the exercise of the trial court’s jurisdiction.” State v. Johnson, supra, 253 Conn. 80. Issues must be fully disclosed on the record, and it is the duty of the appellant to provide the court with a record of properly admitted or sworn testimony before the trial court. State v. Scales, 82 Conn. App. 126, 132, 842 A.2d 1158, cert. denied, 269 Conn. 902, 851 A.2d 305 (2004).

During the defendant’s plea canvass on August 2, 2007, the court apprised the defendant that by pleading guilty, he was giving up the right to a jury trial, the right to confront and to cross-examine witnesses and the right against self-incrimination. During that same hearing, the court stated to the defendant, “If you want a trial, you are entitled to one .... We will arrange that. And if you want to plead, it’s going to be a guilty plea . . . .”

There is no requirement that the defendant be advised of eveiy possible consequence of such a plea or that the court assume the role of the defendant’s counselor. State v. Gilnite, 202 Conn. 369, 383, 521 A.2d 547 (1987). “It is therefore not necessary for the trial court to canvass the defendant to determine that she understands that her plea of guilty or nolo contendere operates as a waiver of any challenge to pretrial proceedings.” Id., 383-84. “[A] trial judge who accepts a guilty plea need not advise the defendant that he thereby waives his right to appeal a non-jurisdictional error such as a denial of his motion to suppress evidence . . . .’’Id., 384, quoting J. Bond, Plea Bargaining and Guilty Pleas (2d Ed. 1982) § 3.50.

Because the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty pleas, he thereby waived his right to challenge on appeal any nonjurisdictional claims arising from the pretrial process. We therefore decline to review the merits of the defendant’s claims.

The judgments are affirmed.

In this opinion HARPER, J., concurred.

BISHOP, J.,

concurring. Although I disagree with aspects of my colleagues’ analysis, I agree that the judgments should be affirmed. Accordingly, and respectfully, I concur.

       Practice Book§ 39-27provides in relevant part: “The grounds for allowing the defendant to withdraw his or her plea of guilty after acceptance are as follows:
      “(1) The plea was accepted without substantial compliance with Section 39-19;
      “(2) The plea was involuntary, or it was entered without knowledge of the nature of the charge or without knowledge that the sentence actually imposed could be imposed . . .
      “(4) The plea resulted from the denial of effective assistance of counsel;
      “(5) There was no factual basis for the plea . . .

       Although the defendant enumerates only one of three applicable docket numbers on his appeal form, he previously listed all three docket numbers intended for appeal on a docketing statement filed with this court. “In accordance with our policy not to exalt form over substance, we have been reluctant to dismiss appeals for technical deficiencies in an appellant’s appeal form.” Rocque v. DeMilo & Co., 85 Conn. App. 512, 527, 857 A.2d 976, 986 (2004). We will address the defendant’s claims pertaining to all three docket numbers.

       At the time of the offense, possession of child pornography in the first degree did not carry a mandatory minimum sentence. See General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 53a-196d. Today, a conviction of possession of child pornography in the first degree is a class B felony carrying a five year, nonsuspendable sentence. See General Statutes § 53a-196d. There was a colloquy between the defendant’s attorney and the prosecutor at a hearing on October 26,2007, regarding the sentencing guidelines pursuant to the child pornography statute. The defendant, in fact, did not face a nonsuspendable sentence on the charge of possession of child pornography.

       Practice Book § 39-19 provides in relevant part that the court “shall not accept [a defendant’s] plea without first addressing the defendant personally and determining that he or she fully understands . . .
      “(2) The mandatory minimum sentence, if any;
      “(3) The fact that the statute for the particular offense does not permit the sentence to be suspended;
      “(4) The maximum possible sentence on the charge, including, if there are several charges, the maximum sentence possible from consecutive sentences and including, when applicable, the fact that a different or additional punishment may be authorized by reason of a previous conviction . . . .”

       Practice Book § 39-20 provides: “The judicial authority shall not accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere without first determining, by addressing the defendant personally in open court, that the plea is voluntary and is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from a plea agreement. The judicial authority shall also inquire as to whether the defendant’s willingness to plead guilty or nolo contendere results from prior discussions between the prosecuting authority and the defendant or his or her counsel.”

       In accordance with our policy of protecting the privacy interests of the victims of sexual abuse and the crime of risk of injury to a child, we decline to identify the victims or others through whom the victims’ identities may be ascertained. See General Statutes § 54-86e.

       The following colloquy look place:
      “The Court: All right. Now, you do represent yourself, as I indicated before. And you understand that you have a right to an attorney?
      “The Defendant: Correct.
      “The Court: And you understand that if you’re unable to afford an attorney, I would appoint one for you at no cost to you.
      “The Defendant: Yes.
      “The Court: Nevertheless, you elected to represent yourself; correct?
      “The Defendant: Well, the court found me qualified. I think the last time I had that I was going to try to get a public defender. But the court—

        “The Court: You had elected to represent yourself; is that correct?
      “The Defendant: Yes.
      “The Court: And I believe on a prior occasion I asked you this, but I will ask it again.
      “The Defendant: Sure.
      “The Court: You understand that there are dangers involved in self-representation.
      “The Defendant: Yes, I do.
      “The Court: You understand it’s difficult for aperson to be objective about his own criminal case. Do you understand that?
      “The Defendant: Yes, I do.
      “The Court: And you are a graduate of a high school, a college and a law school; correct?
      “The Defendant: That’s correct, Your Honor.
      “The Court: And you were and are licensed to practice law in the state of Connecticut?
      “The Defendant: That’s correct.
      “The Court: And you represented clients in the past in criminal cases; correct?
      “The Defendant: That’s true.
      “The Court: You tried cases; correct?
      “The Defendant: That’s correct.
      “The Court: So, you picked a jury?
      “The Defendant: Yes. That’s correct.
      “The Court: You are familiar with the law of evidence?
      “The Defendant: Yes, I am.
      “The Court: You are familiar with the substantive law?
      “The Defendant: Yes.
      “The Court: You are familiar with the range of penalties involved and the charges in this case; correct?
      “The Defendant: Yes, I am.
      “The Court: All right. Is there any reason I should not accept your plea? “The Defendant: No.”

       The following colloquy took place:
      “The Court: Have you had any drugs, alcohol or medicine that would keep you from understanding today’s proceedings?
      “The Defendant: Not really, no.
      “The Court: Now, you are representing yourself; correct?
      “The Defendant: That’s correct, yes.
      “The Court: And on an earlier date, I canvassed you to determine whether you were qualified to represent yourself. And I believe I found you to be qualified to represent yourself.
      “The Defendant: That’s correct.
      “The Court- All right. Do you understand the elements of each offense charged?
      “The Defendant: Yes, Your Honor, I do.
      “The Court: Do you understand the range of penalties, including' the maximum and minimum penalties?
      “The Defendant: Yes, Your Honor, I do.
      “The Court: Do you understand the evidence that the state claims it has against you?
      “The Defendant: I understand what the state claims that they have against me.

        “The Court: Do you understand that by pleading guilty you’re giving up the right to have a jury trial?
      “The Defendant: That’s correct.
      “The Court: You also understand by pleading guilty you’re giving up your right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against you?
      “The Defendant: Yes, Your Honor.
      “The Court: You also understand by pleading guilty you give up your right against self-incrimination, in other words, your right to remain silent, and refuse to take the [witness] stand or say anything against your own interest in this case?
      “The Defendant: Yes, I do.
      “The Court: Is anybody forcing you or threatening you to enter your plea?
      “The Defendant: No.
      “The Court: Are you doing so voluntarily and of your own free will?
      “The Defendant: Yes. . . .
      “The Court: Do you understand that once I accept your plea, you may not take it back without my permission?
      “The Defendant: Yes, I do.
      “The Court: And do you want me to accept your plea?
      “The Defendant: I suppose, yes. I suppose, yes, Your Honor, with this comment. It’s not a caveat. It’s a comment. I disagree with the facts recited by the state, um—
      “The Court: Well, my next question—
      “The Defendant: Sure. I'm sorry.
      “The Court:—is going to be whether the factual claims made by the state’s attorney are essentially correct. You don’t have to agree with every detail. But is the claim substantially and essentially correct?
      “The Defendant: (No response.)
      “The Court: You had sexual intercourse with two underage females. And you tried to influence two of those two, as well as their cousin, to testily falsely or give false information in connection with the matter. That’s my understanding of what is claimed. Is that essentially correct?
      “The Defendant: That’s the allegation, yes, Your Honor. I mean, that’s the allegation.
      “The Court: Is that essentially correct?
      “The Defendant: Excuse me—yes, Your Honor. I’m disposing of the case.
      “The Court: Repeat that please.
      “The Defendant: Excuse me for a minute. Yes.
      “The Court: The factual claims made by the state on all of these charges are essentially correct; is that correct? Is that true?
      “The Defendant: Yes.”

       “Defense Counsel: He’s also indicated, [Your Honor], just to digress a bit, he wants to take the [witness] stand to say that he did not understand. I allege that in my motion. Bul I just want to put on the record that he would, if—and if the court requires it, I can put him on the stand to say—

        “The Court: Well, I offered you the chance to present evidence. You said no. “Defense Counsel: I did. I wanted to—
      “The Court: We’ve had arguments, and now you want to—
      “Defense Counsel: I do not want to put him on, [Your Honor].
      “The Court: Oh.
      “Defense Counsel: I do not want to put him on. [The prosecutor] indicated that [the defendant] knew about 1he pornography based on those motions that were filed. I’m asking the court to not consider those motions as providing the requisite knowledge on the pornography statute.”

       The defendant malees several pretrial claims, including that (1) he was severely ill and heavily medicated at the time of his plea, (2) the state breached its plea agreement, (3) the prosecutor delayed disclosure of or failed to disclose exculpatory information, (4) the prosecutor intimidated witnesses and vindictively used improper and dishonest methods to bolster the case against defendant, (5) the police forged documents to strengthen charges against the defendant, (6) the court failed to suppress certain video and photographic evidence, (7) the defendant was denied access to a law library and necessary paperwork, (8) the court was deliberately indifferent to the defendant’s medical needs, (9) a court was biased against the defendant and issued a warrant for his arrest without probable cause, (10) a different court failed to issue a written decision and to address essential evidentiary suppression claims, (11) an attorney for the defendant failed to relay the defendant’s acceptance of an earlier plea offer to the state and (12) the state failed to give notice to the defendant on the charge of possession of child pornography.

       The defendant also claims that his convictions violated his right to be free of double jeopardy because the crimes of sexual assault in the second degree and risk of injury to a child share the same elements. The defendant’s claim is both inadequately briefed and without merit. Our Supreme Court has clearly held that sexual assault in the second degree and risk of injury to a child are separate offenses and do not implicate double jeopardy. State v. Bletsch, 281 Conn. 5, 28-29, 912 A.2d 992 (2007).

       One of the defendant’s claims is that the court, improperly refused to allow him to enter a plea of nolo contendere. Practice Book § 39-5 provides that, the parties “may agree that the defendant will plead guilty or nolo contendere . . . .” The court acted within its discretion to require that the defendant plead guilty rather than nolo contendere in exchange for the accepted plea deal. Regardless, our Supreme Court has held that a plea of nolo contendere would have virtually the same legal effect as a guilty plea for the purposes of an appeal of this nature. See State v. Martin, 197 Conn. 17, 20 n.7, 495 A.2d 1028 (1985).