green
Positive treatment
11.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2017 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2017
2021
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Maurice B.
See State v. Rivera, 169 Conn. App. 343, 353 , 150 A.3d 244 (2016) (reviewing challenged statement in context of entire trial and closing argument), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 905 , 152 A.3d 544 (2017).
discussed
Cited "see"
Coltherst v. Commissioner of Correction
(2×)
See Flomo v. Commissioner of Correction, 169 Conn. App. 266, 279 , 149 A.3d 185 (2016) (‘[a] reviewing court ordinarily will afford deference to those credibil- ity determinations made by the habeas court on the basis of [the] firsthand observation of [a witness’] con- duct, demeanor and attitude’ . . .), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 906 , 152 A.3d 544 (2017).’’ Houghtaling v. Com- missioner of Correction, supra, 203 Conn. App. 263 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Houghtaling v. Commissioner of Correction
(2×)
See Flomo v. Commissioner of Cor- rection, 169 Conn. App. 266, 279 , 149 A.3d 185 (2016) (‘‘[a] reviewing court ordinarily will afford deference to those credibility determinations made by the habeas court on the basis of [the] firsthand observation of [a witness’] conduct, demeanor and attitude’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 906 , 152 A.3d 544 (2017).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ellis
(2×)
See State v. Robles , 169 Conn.App. 127 , 131, 150 A.3d 687 (2016), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 906 , 152 A.3d 544 (2017) ; see also Young v. Commissioner of Correction , 104 Conn.App. 188 , 193, 932 A.2d 467 (2007) (whether legal conclusions of trial court are legally and logically correct subject to plenary review), cert. denied, 285 Conn. 907 , 942 A.2d 416 (2008).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Howard v. Commissioner of Correction
(2×)
This assertion ‘‘suffers from obvious credibil- ity problems and must be evaluated in light of the cir- cumstances the [petitioner] would have faced at the time of [her] decision.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Id., 475. ‘‘Moreover . . . a petitioner must con- vince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances.’’ Padilla v. Kentucky, supra, 559 U.S. 372 ; see also Flomo v. Commissioner of Correction, 169 Conn. App. 266, 280 , 149 A.3d 185 (2016), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 906 , 152 A.3d 544 (2017).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
James P. v. Commissioner of Correction
(2×)
See, e.g., Williams v. Commissioner of Correc- tion, 120 Conn. App. 412 , 421–22, 991 A.2d 705 (because trial court fully informed petitioner of terms of plea agreement and petitioner acknowledged that he under- stood those terms, petitioner was unable to demon- strate prejudice despite counsel’s inaccurate advice), cert. denied, 297 Conn. 915 , 996 A.2d 279 (2010); see also Flomo v. Commissioner of Correction, 169 Conn. App. 266, 285 , 149 A.3d 185 (2016) (‘‘[a] court is permit- ted to rely upon a defendant’s answer given in response to a plea canvass’’), cert. denied, 324 Conn.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Sumler
See State v. Gore, supra, 342 Conn 159–63; see also State v. Rivera, 169 Conn. App. 343, 371 , 150 A.3d 244 (2016) (‘‘[t]he trial court has wide discretion in its rulings on evidence and its rulings will be reversed only if the court has abused its discretion or an injustice appears to have been done’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 905 , 152 A.3d 544 (2017).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Jose R.
Ed. 2d 822 (1998); and discuss ‘‘the weight to be afforded the defendant’s [out-of-court] statements . . . .’’ State v. Correa, 241 Conn. 322, 360 , 696 A.2d 944 (1997); see also State v. Rivera, 169 Conn. App. 343 , 352–54, 150 A.3d 244 (2016) (prosecutor’s remarks urging jury to assess defendant’s credibility on basis of two out-of- court statements to police were not improper), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 905 , 152 A.3d 544 (2017); State v. Rupar, 86 Conn. App. 641 , 652–53, 862 A.2d 352 (2004) (prosecutor’s statement that, in sexual assault cases, ‘‘ ‘it’s often a v…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Watson
The court determines whether the evidence sought on cross-examination is relevant by determining whether that evidence renders the existence of [other facts] either certain or more probable.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Thomas, 177 Conn. App. 369 , 384–85, 173 A.3d 430 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 985 , 175 A.3d 43 (2017); see also State v. Rivera, 169 Conn. App. 343, 380 , 150 A.3d 244 (2016) (‘‘[a] defendant . . . may introduce only relevant evidence, and, if the proffered evidence is not relevant, its exclusion is proper and the defendant’s righ…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Rolando ROBLES
v.
Rolando ROBLES
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jan 4, 2017.
Published
The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 169 Conn.App. 127, 150 A.3d 687 (2016), is denied.