State v. Hamilton, 621 A.2d 290 (Conn. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Hamilton, 621 A.2d 290 (Conn. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“he defendant's brief makes it clear that he deliberately chose not to file a transcript of the trial”
24 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Spillane (conn, 2001-04-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) State v. Spillane
Conn. · 2001 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
he defendant's brief makes it clear that he deliberately chose not to file a transcript of the trial
cited Cited "see" Corcoran v. Taylor
Conn. App. Ct. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Budlong v. Nadeau, 30 Conn. App. 61, 64 , 619 A.2d 4 , cert, denied, 225 Conn. 909 , 621 A.2d 290 , cert, denied, 510 U.S. 814 , 114 S. Ct. 62 , 126 L.
cited Cited "see" Gill v. Diorio
Conn. App. Ct. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Budlong v. Nadeau, 30 Conn. App. 61, 64 , 619 A.2d 4 , cert. denied, 225 Conn. 909 , 621 A.2d 290 , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 814 , 114 S. Ct. 62 , 126 L.
discussed Cited "see" Amica Mutual Insurance v. Woods
Conn. App. Ct. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
Hurtado v. Hurtado, 14 Conn. App. 296, 300 , 541 A.2d 873 (1988); see Budlong v. Nadeau, 30 Conn. App. 61, 64 , 619 A.2d 4 , cert. denied, 225 Conn. 909 , 621 A.2d 290 , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 814 , 114 S. Ct. 62 , 126 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State of Connecticut
v.
William Hamilton, Jr.
SC 14704.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Feb 24, 1993.
621 A.2d 290
Elizabeth M. Inkster, assistant public defender, in support of the petition.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 57%
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Connecticut (1)

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 30 Conn. App. 68 (AC 10692), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court improperly commingle direct appeal and collateral review standards and thereby arrive at the erroneous and harmful legal conclusion that in order to prevail on a direct appeal claim that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a continuance to obtain new counsel, the defendant must demonstrate ‘specific prejudice’ or claim ‘ineffective assistance of counsel’?”