green
Positive treatment
12.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 2018 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2018
2022
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Bryan
See State v. Hall-Davis, 177 Conn. App. 211, 242 , 172 A.3d 222 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 987 , 175 A.3d 43 (2017). 10 As a preliminary matter, the state argues that we should not review the defendant’s claim that portions of Hall-Davis’ statements were blame-shifting and, thus, not against his penal interest because the defendant failed to raise that claim before the trial court.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Holmes
See State v. Holmes , 176 Conn. App. 156 , 159-61, 169 A.3d 264 , cert. granted, 327 Conn. 984 , 175 A.3d 561 (2017).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Daren Y.
The state con- tends that we should adopt the rule favored by the Appellate Court; see, e.g., State v. Pugh, 176 Conn. App. 518 , 534–35, 170 A.3d 710 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 985 , 175 A.3d 43 (2017); State v. Coughlin, 61 Conn. App. 90, 97 , 762 A.2d 1 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 934 , 767 A.2d 105 (2001); State v. Harrison, 34 Conn. App. 473 , 491–92, 642 A.2d 36 , cert. denied, 231 Conn. 907 , 648 A.2d 157 (1994); which considers the statute of limitations to be an affirmative defense, and, like all other affirmative defenses, it is implicitly waived if not timely raised before th…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Daren Y.
The state con- tends that we should adopt the rule favored by the Appellate Court; see, e.g., State v. Pugh, 176 Conn. App. 518 , 534–35, 170 A.3d 710 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 985 , 175 A.3d 43 (2017); State v. Coughlin, 61 Conn. App. 90, 97 , 762 A.2d 1 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 934 , 767 A.2d 105 (2001); State v. Harrison, 34 Conn. App. 473 , 491–92, 642 A.2d 36 , cert. denied, 231 Conn. 907 , 648 A.2d 157 (1994); which considers the statute of limitations to be an affirmative defense, and, like all other affirmative defenses, it is implicitly waived if not timely raised before th…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Massaro
The question of whether the defendant has been prejudiced by prosecu- torial [impropriety] . . . depends on whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury’s verdict would have been different absent the sum total of the impropri- eties.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sinclair, 332 Conn. 204, 236-37 , 210 A.3d 509 (2019); see also State v. Thomas, 177 Conn. App. 369, 405 , 173 A.3d 430 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 985 , 175 A.3d 43 (2017). ‘‘[T]he touchstone of due process analysis in cases of alleged prosecutorial [impropriety] is the fairness o…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Coleman v. Commissioner of Correction
(4×)
A habeas petitioner cannot establish that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification on issues that were not raised in the peti- tion for certification to appeal.’’ (Citation omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 578–79; see also Per- eira v. Commissioner of Correction, 176 Conn. App. 762, 775 , 171 A.3d 105 (because it is impossible to review exercise of discretion that did not occur, Appellate Court confined to reviewing only those issues which had been brought to attention of habeas court in petition for certification to appeal), cert. denied, 327 Con…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Coleman v. Commissioner of Correction
(4×)
A habeas petitioner cannot establish that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification on issues that were not raised in the peti- tion for certification to appeal.’’ (Citation omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 578–79; see also Per- eira v. Commissioner of Correction, 176 Conn. App. 762, 775 , 171 A.3d 105 (because it is impossible to review exercise of discretion that did not occur, Appellate Court confined to reviewing only those issues which had been brought to attention of habeas court in petition for certification to appeal), cert. denied, 327 Con…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. White
Rptr. 596 , 596) (relying on Wang and granting indigent defendant’s motion for funds for expert witness, despite public defender’s initial refusal to pay because defendant was represented by pro bono counsel and not public defender, and ordering that ‘‘the defendant . . . follow the protocol of the OCPD in applying for such funds and that the OCPD shall not unreasonably deny such funds’’); id., 597 (concluding that indigent defendant represented by pro bono coun- sel is constitutionally entitled to public funds for expert witness); see also State v. Thomas, 177 Conn. App. 369 , 402…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. White
Rptr. 596 , 596) (relying on Wang and granting indigent defendant’s motion for funds for expert witness, despite public defender’s initial refusal to pay because defendant was represented by pro bono counsel and not public defender, and ordering that ‘‘the defendant . . . follow the protocol of the OCPD in applying for such funds and that the OCPD shall not unreasonably deny such funds’’); id., 597 (concluding that indigent defendant represented by pro bono counsel is constitutionally entitled to public funds for expert witness); see also State v. Thomas, 177 Conn. App. 369 , 402�…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bell v. Commissioner of Correction
(2×)
See, e.g., Pereira v. Commissioner of Correction , 176 Conn. App. 762 , 778, 171 A.3d 105 ( Salamon instruction not required when restraint forming basis of kidnapping has independent legal significance and is otherwise "sufficiently disconnected" from other crime), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 984 , 175 A.3d 43 (2017) ; State v. Golder , 127 Conn. App. 181 , 191, 14 A.3d 399 ( Salamon instruction not required where criminal conduct underlying kidnapping charge completed prior to restraint of victim), cert. denied, 301 Conn. 912 , 19 A.3d 180 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Jackson
See part IV of this opinion; see also State v. Pugh , 176 Conn. App. 518 , 533, 170 A.3d 710 (concluding that "the state presented a strong case against the defendant, even if some of the evidence was circumstantial"), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 985 , 175 A.3d 43 (2017) ; State v. Hayward , 116 Conn. App. 511 , 520, 976 A.2d 791 (concluding that state's case was strong despite fact that evidence with respect to defendant's use of dangerous instrument was "in large part circumstantial"), cert. denied, 293 Conn. 934 , 981 A.2d 1077 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Vega
See State v. Campbell , 328 Conn. 444 , 512, A.3d (2018) ("[i]t is well established that a violation of the defendant's right to confront witnesses is subject to harmless error analysis" [internal quotation marks omitted] ); see also State v. Pugh , 176 Conn. App. 518 , 528, 170 A.3d 710 (conducting harmless error analysis to resolve confrontation clause claim), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 985 , 175 A.3d 43 (2017).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ricardo PEREIRA
v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Dec 14, 2017.
Published
The petitioner Ricardo Pereira's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 176 Conn. App. 762, 171 A.3d 105 (2017), is denied.