green
Positive treatment
2.5 score
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. James
See id. (certified copy of judgment sufficient to prove prior felony conviction element of persistent dangerous felony offender charge); see also State v. Fullwood, 194 Conn. 573, 589 , 484 A.2d 435 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Gore
See State v. Ouellette, supra, 271 Conn. 748 -55; State v. Groomes, 232 Conn. 455, 474-76 , 656 A.2d 646 (1995); State v. Marino, 190 Conn. 639, 641-46 , 646-47 n.8, 462 A.2d 1021 (1983); State v. Shockley, supra, 188 Conn. 700 -709; see also State v. Henton, 50 Conn. App. 521, 527-30 , 529-30 n.4, 720 A.2d 517 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 945 , 723 A.2d 322 (1998); State v. Tangari, 44 Conn. App. 187, 191-95 , 688 A.2d 1335 , cert. denied, 241 Conn. 901 , 693 A.2d 304 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 867 , 118 S. Ct. 177 , 139 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Barnes
See State v. Rodriguez, 93 Conn. App. 739, 747 , 890 A.2d 591 (inquiry made after timely conflict objection revealed insignificant, unsubstantiated complaints regarding counsel’s performance that were not sufficient to warrant withdrawal of counsel), cert. granted on other grounds, 277 Conn. 930 , 896 A.2d 102 (2006); see also State v. Henton, 50 Conn. App. 521, 527 , 720 A.2d 517 (what defendant referred to as conflict of interest between him and trial counsel was mere disagreement because it did not arise out of counsel’s representation of clients with adverse interests), cert. denied, 2…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
ANGEL OCASIO
v.
ANGEL OCASIO
16049.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Dec 7, 1998.
Ronald G. Weller, assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition., Neal Cone, assistant public defender, in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
The petition of the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 50 Conn. App. 748 (AC 16474), is granted, limited to the following issues:
“1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that literal, rather than substantial, compliance is required in order for a defendant’s plea of guilty to be valid under Practice Book § 39-20?
“2. If the answer to the first question is no, was there substantial compliance with Practice Book § 39-20?”