green
Positive treatment
11.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Bozelko
(2×)
See State v. Koslik , 116 Conn.App. 693 , 705, 977 A.2d 275 (noting that defendant failed to file motion for articulation regarding decision of sentencing court or decision denying motion to correct illegal sentence), cert. denied, 293 Conn. 930 , 980 A.2d 916 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Houghtaling
The court credited the officers’ testimony at the hearing and found that ‘‘[t]he defendant’s flight, coupled with police knowledge that someone entering on the property might be involved in the grow operation, and the defendant’s subsequent parking of the van adjacent to the property, furnished a reasonable and articulable basis of suspicion on which officers could, at the very least, question the driver of the vehicle about his presence there.’’ The defendant argues that merely driving onto the driveway, backing up, and parking on the street cannot be sufficient to establish a r…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Abraham
(2×)
See State v. Kos- lik, 116 Conn. App. 693, 697 , 977 A.2d 275 , cert. denied, 293 Conn. 930 , 980 A.2d 916 (2009). ‘‘Jurisdiction involves the power in a court to hear and determine the cause of action presented to it and its source is the constitutional and statutory provisions by which it is created. . . .
discussed
Cited "see"
Thomas v. Commissioner of Correction
(2×)
See Townsend v. Commissioner of Correction, 116 Conn. App. 663, 668 , 975 A.2d 1282 (insufficient showing of prejudice where petitioner offered sole testimony regarding exculpatory witness because court had no opportunity to evaluate testimony or credibility of claimed witness), cert. denied, 293 Conn. 930 , 980 A.2d 916 (2009); Andrews v. Commissioner of Correction, 45 Conn. App. 242, 247-48 , 695 A.2d 20 (prejudice cannot be demonstrated with regard to trial counsel’s alleged failure to interview potential witnesses where petitioner fails to call those witnesses to testify at habeas trial …
examined
Cited "see"
DEROY v. Estate of Baron
(4×)
See State v. Koslik, 116 Conn. App. 693, 704 , 977 A.2d 275 , cert. denied, 293 Conn. 930 , 980 A.2d 916 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see"
Henderson v. Commissioner of Correction
(2×)
See Townsend v. Commissioner of Correction, 116 Conn. App. 663, 668 , 975 A.2d 1282 (insufficient showing of prejudice where petitioner offered sole testimony regarding exculpatory witness because court had no opportunity to evaluate testimony *195 or credibility of claimed witness), cert. denied, 293 Conn. 930 , 980 A.2d 916 (2009); Andrews v. Commissioner of Correction, 45 Conn. App. 242, 247-48 , 695 A.2d 20 (prejudice cannot be demonstrated with regard to trial counsel’s alleged failure to interview potential witnesses where petitioner fails to call those witnesses to testify at habeas t…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Evans
(2×)
I As a threshold matter; see, e.g., State v. Koslik , 116 Conn. App. 693 , 699, 977 A.2d 275 , cert. denied, 293 Conn. 930 , 980 A.2d 916 (2009) ; we begin with the state's challenges to the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction, 11 namely, that (1) the defendant's motion to correct improperly challenged the underlying conviction, rather than the sentence, and (2) this case is moot because the defendant's sentence was the product of a plea bargain. 12 **778 A Relying on State v. Lawrence , 281 Conn. 147 , 913 A.2d 428 (2007), the state contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Dayton
(2×)
The Superior Court's authority over criminal cases is established by the proper presentment of the information ... which is essential to initiate a criminal proceeding." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Daly , 111 Conn.App. 397 , 401-402, 960 A.2d 1040 (2008), cert. denied, 292 Conn. 909 , 973 A.2d 108 (2009) ; see also State v. Koslik , 116 Conn.App. 693 , 697, 977 A.2d 275 , cert. denied, 293 Conn. 930 , 980 A.2d 916 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Antwon W. v. Commissioner of Correction
(2×)
This court has explained that the failure to elicit testimony in the habeas court from allegedly exculpatory witnesses precludes a finding of prejudice because "[w]ithout their testimony, the habeas court [cannot] evaluate them as witnesses, nor [can] it assess the import of their testimony." Henderson v. Commissioner of Correction , 129 Conn.App. 188 , 194, 19 A.3d 705 , cert. denied, 303 Conn. 901 , 31 A.3d 1177 (2011) ; see also Townsend v. Commissioner of Correction , 116 Conn.App. 663 , 668, 975 A.2d 1282 (petitioner failed to show prejudice where only testimony at habeas trial regarding …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. St. Louis
(2×)
Thus, if the defendant cannot demonstrate that his motion to correct falls within the purview of § 43-22, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lewis, 108 Conn. App. 486, 488 , 948 A.2d 389 (2008); see also State v. Lawrence, 281 Conn. 147, 155 , 913 A.2d 428 (2007). “[I]n order for the court to have jurisdiction over a motion to correct an illegal sentence after the sentence has been executed, the sentencing proceeding [itself] . . . must be the subject of the attack.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Henderson
(2×)
State v. Lewis, 108 Conn. App. 486, 488 , 948 A.2d 389 (2008); see also State v. Koslik, 116 Conn. App. 693, 697 , 977 A.2d 275 , cert. denied, 293 Conn. 930 , 980 A.2d 916 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Parker
(2×)
Because the present case provides this court’s first opportunity to directly address this ground for correcting a sentence under § 43-22, and because there is a split of authority in the Appellate *834 Court as to whether trial courts have jurisdiction to correct sentences on this basis; see State v. Dixson, 93 Conn. App. 171 , 176 n.6, 888 A.2d 1088 (recognizing split of authority but concluding that this court implicitly had acknowledged jurisdiction for specific claim in case before court), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 917 , 895 A.2d 790 (2006); see also State v. Koslik, 116 Conn. App. 693, 7…
State of Connecticut
v.
Richard Koslik
v.
Richard Koslik
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Oct 1, 2009.
Jodi Zils Gagne, special public defender, in support of the petition.
Vertefeuille.
Published
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 116 Conn. App. 693 (AC 29673), is denied.
VERTEFEUILLE, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.