State v. Hedman, 772 A.2d 602 (Conn. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Hedman, 772 A.2d 602 (Conn. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Hobson (connappct, 2002-02-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" State v. Hobson
Conn. App. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Hedman, 62 Conn. App. 403, 404 , 772 A.2d 603 , cert. granted, 256 Conn. 909 , 772 A.2d 602 (2001).
cited Cited "see" State v. Stone
Conn. App. Ct. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Hedman, 62 Conn. App. 403, 415 , 772 A.2d 603 , cert, granted on other grounds, 256 Conn. 909 , 772 A.2d 602 (2001).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Stewart
Conn. App. Ct. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
The court’s analysis of that issue is illuminating because it underscores the principle that “decisions concerning matters of trial strategy and tactics rest with the lawyer, as opposed to decisions concerning . . . inherently personal rights of fundamental importance to the defendant . . . .” Id., 95 ; see also State v. Hedman, 62 Conn. App. 403 , 772 A.2d 603 , (discussing fundamental posttrial right of defendant to allocution prior to imposition of sentence), cert. granted on other grounds, 256 Conn. 909 , 772 A.2d 602 (2001).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
EDWARD HEDMAN
SC 16514.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Apr 25, 2001.
772 A.2d 602
Susann E. Gill, senior assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition., Martin Zeldis, senior assistant public defender, in opposition.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

The petition by the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 62 Conn. App. 403 (AC 19834), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the failure of the trial court affirmatively to offer the defendant an opportunity to address the court personally before the court imposed sentence in the dispositional phase of the defendant’s revocation hearing was plain error, requiring reversal of the imposition of the sentence?”

ZARELLA, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.