Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-94a (2026)

Conditional nolo contendere plea. Appeal of denial of motion to suppress or dismiss

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

When a defendant, prior to the commencement of trial, enters a plea of nolo contendere conditional on the right to take an appeal from the court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress or motion to dismiss, the defendant after the imposition of sentence may file an appeal within the time prescribed by law provided a trial court has determined that a ruling on such motion to suppress or motion to dismiss would be dispositive of the case. The issue to be considered in such an appeal shall be limited to whether it was proper for the court to have denied the motion to suppress or the motion to dismiss. A plea of nolo contendere by a defendant under this section shall not constitute a waiver by the defendant of nonjurisdictional defects in the criminal prosecution.

(P.A. 82-17; P.A. 88-19; P.A. 01-13.)

History: P.A. 88-19 authorized the entry of a plea of nolo contendere conditional on the right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress statements and evidence based on the involuntariness of a statement; P.A. 01-13 substituted “motion to suppress” for “motion to suppress evidence based on an unreasonable search or seizure, motion to suppress statements and evidence based on the involuntariness of a statement” and added proviso re determination by a trial court “that a ruling on such motion to suppress or motion to dismiss would be dispositive of the case”.

Cited. 189 C. 42; 194 C. 331; 197 C. 17; Id., 620. Voluntariness of confession is not within purview of statute. 198 C. 92. Cited. 199 C. 591; 200 C. 412; 202 C. 39; Id., 369; Id., 443; 203 C. 97; 205 C. 560; 206 C. 90; Id., 323; Id., 346; 209 C. 1; 210 C. 435; 212 C. 485; 214 C. 476; 215 C. 667; 216 C. 402; 218 C. 714; 220 C. 38; 221 C. 635; 224 C. 593; Id., 627; 226 C. 265; 227 C. 207; Id., 363; 229 C. 824; 230 C. 372; 232 C. 345; 234 C. 78; 236 C. 18; Id., 216. Conditional plea could qualify for review of substantive claims under Practice Book Sec. 4003(b) rather than this section; judgment of Appellate Court in 37 CA 252 reversed. Id., 388. Cited. 240 C. 365; Id., 489; 242 C. 211; 243 C. 115; Id., 205. Defendant had no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal and defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to consult with defendant regarding appellate rights section would have preserved. 267 C. 414. Defendant's claim that trial court improperly denied his request for a continuance to change counsel does not fall within the narrow scope of section. 269 C. 454. Defendant's nolo contendre plea was not conditional even though trial court treated the plea as if it were conditional by conducting a sua sponte hearing; statute does not apply and Appellate Court has no good cause to review claim outside scope of statute. 276 C. 503.

Cited. 2 CA 219; 5 CA 207; Id., 441; 6 CA 394; 7 CA 265; Id., 354; 8 CA 330; Id., 361; Id., 542; 10 CA 7; Id., 561; Id., 667; 11 CA 11; Id., 140; Id., 540; judgment reversed, see 209 C. 1; 12 CA 427; 14 CA 134; Id., 205; Id., 356; 19 CA 296; Id., 626; 20 CA 168; judgment reversed, see 215 C. 667; Id., 336; 21 CA 210; 22 CA 10; 23 CA 50; Id., 215; Id., 495; 24 CA 115; Id., 438; 25 CA 3; Id., 99; 26 CA 103; Id., 481; judgment reversed, see 224 C. 494; 27 CA 128; Id., 248; Id., 370; Id., 461; Id., 741; 28 CA 508; 29 CA 207; 30 CA 712; Id., 917; 31 CA 669; 32 CA 656; judgment reversed in part, see 232 C. 345; Id., 849; 33 CA 107; Id., 409; Id., 590; 34 CA 492; Id., 557; 36 CA 106; judgment reversed, see 234 C. 78; Id., 710; 37 CA 205. Nothing in language of statute indicating that word “voluntariness” is meant to include claims of right to counsel. Id., 252; judgment reversed, see 236 C. 388. Cited. Id., 561; judgment reversed, see 236 C. 216; 38 CA 8; judgment reversed, see 236 C. 18; Id., 588; 39 CA 82; 40 CA 420; Id., 724; 41 CA 530; Id., 694; Id., 772; 42 CA 589; 43 CA 448; 44 CA 162; Id., 249; 45 CA 32; 46 CA 633. Trial court's exercise of discretion regarding youthful offender status not a claim encompassed by section. 51 CA 539. If defendant understood that, by entering a plea pursuant to statute, the only issue allowed on appeal was whether trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress, then defendant cannot raise other issues on appeal. 55 CA 217. Claim of insufficient evidence is not one of the particular claims that statute permits to be appealed. 67 CA 562. Although defendant's claim is cast as a challenge to court's denials of his motions to suppress and to dismiss, his claim is, in reality, a challenge to court's denial of his motion for disclosure; as such, his claim is not reviewable pursuant to section. 81 CA 492. Determination requirement of section is not a matter of convenience, but rather a matter of substance necessary to achieve the goals of statute, therefore, the requirement is mandatory. 83 CA 700. Statutory requirement that court make a determination that the ruling on a motion to suppress or dismiss would be dispositive of the case is a matter of substance necessary to achieve goals of statute and therefore is mandatory. 87 CA 122. In a matter where state stipulated before trial court that court's ruling on defendant's motion to suppress evidence of prior uncharged misconduct was dispositive of case, the state was estopped from asserting otherwise before Appellate Court, as the state waived any right it may have had to dispute whether trial court was correct in its determination. 104 CA 85. Defendant's appeal did not meet the requirements of section where sole basis for appeal was that the court improperly denied defendant's motion to present the defense of necessity and the court never made the mandatory finding that denial of this motion was dispositive of the case. 161 CA 850.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 290 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: State v. Piorkowski, 672 A.2d 921 (Conn. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Piorkowski, 672 A.2d 921 (Conn. 1996). · cites it 64× “The defendant contends that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that his claims were not reviewable under General Statutes § 54-94a, 5 Practice Book § 4003 or the appellate supervisory power over the administration of justice.”

State v. Turner, 838 A.2d 947 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 27× “to 1999) § 54-94a 3 and Practice Book § 61-6, 4 thereby preserving the right to appeal *418 from the denial of his motion to suppress.”

State v. Commins, 886 A.2d 824 (Conn. 2005). · cites it 29× “First, if the defendant enters a conditional nolo contendere plea pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a, 5 he or she may preserve certain claims arising from the trial court’s denial of a *511 motion to suppress or amotion to dismiss.”

State v. Gilnite, 521 A.2d 547 (Conn. 1987). · cites it 30× “II The defendant next claims that, even if the issue of waiver could have been addressed, the Appellate Court erred in concluding that she had waived her right to appeal because she entered her plea of nolo contendere pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a 3 and thus pre *374…”

State v. Revelo, 775 A.2d 260 (Conn. 2001). · cites it 19× “, 224-25, 226; see General Statutes § 54-94a. In declining to review the defendant’s due process claim, the Appellate Court reasoned that because the defendant had accepted the terms of the court’s plea offer “knowingly and freely”; State v.”

State v. Saturno, 139 A.3d 629 (Conn. 2016). · cites it 18× “The defendant, Donald Saturno, appeals from the judgments of conviction rendered by the trial court following his conditional pleas of nolo contendere, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a,1 to one count of manufacturing a bomb in violation of Gen- eral Statutes § 53-80a and…”

State v. Piorkowski, 656 A.2d 1046 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 40× “He appeals from the judgment pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a* 2 and Practice Book § 4003 3 and asserts that the trial court improperly-denied his motion to suppress two statements that he gave to Norwalk police officers.”

State v. Madera, 503 A.2d 136 (Conn. 1985). · cites it 13× “The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that the defendant’s motion was premature because it was based upon the speculative assumption that any verdict in this case would be predicated on either second or third degree arson.”

State v. Jenkins, 3 A.3d 806 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 8× “" Following the denial of his motion to suppress, the defendant pleaded nolo contendere, conditioned on his right to appeal, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a, [11] to one count of possession of narcotics with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation…”

State v. Paradis, 881 A.2d 530 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 21× “Pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a, 4 the defendant entered a conditional plea of nolo contendere to the *599 charge of possession of narcotics with the intent to sell in violation of § 2 la-278 (a), 5 reserving his right to appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress.”

State v. Chong Chung, 519 A.2d 1175 (Conn. 1987). · cites it 10× “After the hearing, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress.”

State v. Lasaga, 848 A.2d 1149 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 12× “When jury selection began on January 4, 2002, the defendant changed his plea and entered pleas of nolo contendere to two counts of sexual assault in the first degree, two counts of promoting a minor in an obscene performance, and two counts of risk of injury to a child, but…”

Show all 290 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.