State v. Lawrence, 891 A.2d 4 (Conn. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Lawrence, 891 A.2d 4 (Conn. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Mapp (connappct, 2009-12-22)
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State v. Mapp
Conn. App. Ct. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Quinones, 92 Conn. App. 389, 391 , 885 A.2d 227 (2005) (violation of any one condition of probation would suffice to serve as basis for revoking defendant’s probation), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 904 , 891 A.2d 4 (2006); see also State v. Payne, 88 Conn. App. 656, 660 , 870 A.2d 1159 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 903 , 876 A.2d 13 (2005).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Gutierrez
Conn. App. Ct. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence low
A second question was therefore redundant, and the court did not abuse its discretion by sustaining the objection. “[T]he trial court is vested with wide and liberal discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence claimed to be repetitious, remote or irrelevant.” State v. Reddick, 33 Conn. App. 311, 318 , 635 A.2d 848 (1993), cert. denied, 228 Conn. 924 , 638 A.2d 38 (1994); see also State v. Quinones, 92 Conn. App. 389, 392 , 885 A.2d 227 (2005) (rules of evidence do not strictly apply to probation hearings), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 904 , 891 A.2d 4 (2006); State v. Young, 63 Conn…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Benjamin
Conn. App. Ct. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
The reasoning set forth in Wells is instructive: “This court has observed that to support a judgment of revocation of probation, ‘[o]ur law does not require the state to prove that all conditions alleged were violated; it is sufficient to prove that one was violated.’ State v. Widlak, 74 Conn. App. 364, 370 , 812 A.2d 134 (2002), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 902 , 823 A.2d 1222 (2003); see also State v. Quinones, 92 Conn. App. 389, 391 , 885 A.2d 227 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 904 , 891 A.2d 4 (2006).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Wells
Conn. App. Ct. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
This court has observed that to support a judgment of revocation of probation, “[o]ur law does not require the state to prove that all conditions alleged were violated; it is sufficient to prove that one was violated.” State v. Widlak, 74 Conn. App. 364, 370 , 812 A.2d 134 (2002), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 902 , 823 A.2d 1222 (2003); see also State v. Quinones, 92 Conn. App. 389, 391 , 885 A.2d 227 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 904 , 891 A.2d 4 (2006).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Tarrance LAWRENCE.
17598.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jan 11, 2006.
891 A.2d 4
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Donald D. Dakers, special public defender, in support of the petition.

Michele C. Lukban, senior assistant state's attorney, in opposition.

The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 91 Conn.App. 765, 882 A.2d 689 (2005), is granted, limited to the following issue:

"Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence?"

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17598.