green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
3.8 score
“mere assertion by the defendant that the plea was involuntary . . . does not entitle to withdraw the plea, nor does it require ... an evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw”
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Johnson
mere assertion by the defendant that the plea was involuntary . . . does not entitle to withdraw the plea, nor does it require ... an evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Irala
See State v. Casado, 42 Conn. App. 371, 375 , 680 A.2d 981 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 920 , 682 A.2d 1006 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Barnwell
As we have noted, the defendant affirmatively indicated *264 that he was satisfied with his counsel’s representation. 8 This court has stated that “a trial court . . . may properly rely on . . . the responses of the [defendant] at the time he responded to the trial court’s plea canvass . . . .” Bowers v. Warden, 19 Conn. App. 440, 443 , 562 A.2d 588 , cert. denied, 212 Conn. 817 , 565 A.2d 534 (1989); see also State v. Casado, 42 Conn. App. 371, 377-78 , 680 A.2d 981 (in denying request for evidentiary hearing, court properly relied on defendant’s representation during plea proceedin…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Silva
It is well established that “ [a] trial court ‘may properly rely on . . . the responses of the [defendant] at the time [she] responded to the trial court’s plea canvass . . . .’ Bowers v. Warden, [supra, 19 Conn. App. 443 ]; see also State v. Williams, 203 Conn. 159, 170 , 523 A.2d 1284 (1987).” State v. Casado, 42 Conn. App. 371, 377 , 680 A.2d 981 (trial court properly relied on defendant’s representations that she was not forced into entering plea), cert, denied, 239 Conn. 920 , 682 A.2d 1006 (1996).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
MELVIN D. BRASWELL
v.
MELVIN D. BRASWELL
SC 15532.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 18, 1996.
Todd D. Femow, in support of the petition., Carolyn K. Longstreth, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Connecticut (1)
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 42 Conn. App. 264 (AC 13902), is granted, limited to the following issue:
“Whether the Appellate Court properly held that the defendant’s conviction and consecutive sentence for attempted sale of narcotics in violation of General Statutes §§ 21a-278 (b) and 53a-49 (a) and attempted delivery of narcotics to an inmate of a correctional institution in violation of §§ 53a-174 (a) and 53a-49 (a) did not violate principles of double jeopardy?”