cited Cited "see" Gaskin v. Commissioner of Correction See Grant v. Commissioner of Correction , 87 Conn. App. 814 , 817, 867 A.2d 145 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 918 , 879 A.2d 895 (2005).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Leak The court shall state whether the respective maxima and minima shall run concurrently or consecutively with respect to each other, and shall state in conclusion the effective sentence imposed. . . 12 We recognize the principle that, “ [i]n the absence of a timely designation of the defendant’s sentence as concurrent with or consecutive to his prior undischarged term of imprisonment, the common-law rule prevails, and the sentence will be treated as concurrent.” State v. Pina, 185 Conn. 473, 482 , 440 A.2d 962 (1981); see also Grant v. Commissioner of Correction, 87 Conn. App. 814, 818 , 8…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Kelly A person who should be confined is defined in § 17a-580 (10) as “an acquittee who has psychiatric *35 disabilities ... to the extent that his discharge . . . would constitute a danger to himself or others . . . .” In State v. March, 265 Conn. 697 , 830 A.2d 212 (2003), our Supreme Court further interpreted the statutory phrase “[d] anger to self or to others” according to § 17a-581-2 (a) (6) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies as meaning “the risk of imminent physical injury to others or self, including the risk of loss or destruction of the property of others.” (Int…