green
Positive treatment
6.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
State v. Fisher
Ed. 2d 230 (1988); but see State v. Oliphant, 115 Conn. App. 542 , 548 n.5, 973 A.2d 147 (noting that “[Revocation of [probation] is not part of a criminal prosecution and thus the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such a proceeding does not apply to [probation] revocations” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 293 Conn. 912 , 978 A.2d 1113 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Maurice B.
See State v. Schiller, 115 Conn. App. 189, 196 , 972 A.2d 272 (court could not conclude that remark was improper when meaning was Page 20 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 22 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 State v. Maurice B. unclear), cert. denied, 293 Conn. 910 , 978 A.2d 1113 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Salazar
See State v. Schiller, 115 Conn. App. 189, 196 , 972 A.2d 272 , cert. denied, 293 Conn. 910 , 978 A.2d 1113 (2009). 4 The defendant also argues that the following state- ment made by the prosecutor during rebuttal argument was improper: ‘‘[T]here was no relationship in 2009 with [the victim] and the defendant.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. LAMEIRAO
See State v. Martinez, 115 Conn. App. 426 , 429 n.4, 973 A.2d 120 , cert. denied, 293 Conn. 914 , 978 A.2d 1113 (2009). 13 Practice Book § 39-27 provides in relevant part: “The grounds for allowing the defendant to withdraw his . . . plea of guilty after acceptance are as follows: “(1) The plea was accepted without substantial compliance with Section 39-19; “(2) The plea was involuntary, or it was entered without knowledge of the nature of the charge or without knowledge that the sentence actually imposed could be imposed . . . “(4) The plea resulted from the denial of effective assis…
cited
Cited "see"
Oliphant v. Warden, State Prison
See State v. Oliphant, 115 Conn. App. 542 , 973 A.2d 147 , cert. denied, 293 Conn. 912 , 978 A.2d 1113 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Morel
See, e.g., State v. Saez, 115 Conn. App. 295, 305 , 972 A.2d 277 (defendant’s conduct in pushing store merchandise in its original packaging under theft detection device at front door of store and then exiting with it reasonably supported inference that he intended to convert prop- erty to his own use without paying for it), cert. denied, 293 Conn. 909 , 978 A.2d 1113 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Morel
See, e.g., State v. Saez , 115 Conn.App. 295 , 305, 972 A.2d 277 (defendant's conduct in pushing store merchandise in its original packaging under theft detection device at front door of store and then exiting with it reasonably supported inference that he intended to convert property to his own use without paying for it), cert. denied, 293 Conn. 909 , 978 A.2d 1113 (2009).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Perugini
See, e.g., id., 304–305 (evidence sufficient for larceny conviction despite fact that defendant’s testimony conflicted with other testimony supporting verdict).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
JAVIER L. SAEZ
v.
JAVIER L. SAEZ
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 9, 2009.
Suzanne Z. Curtis, assistant public defender, in support of the petition., Timothy J. Sugrue, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Published
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 115 Conn. App. 295 (AC 28209), is denied.
NORCOTT and KATZ, Js., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.