Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
18 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1981–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mukhtaargreen2 sentences2019See State v. Mukhtaar, 189 Conn. App. 144 , 150 n.6., 207 A.3d 29 (2019); State v. Jason B., [supra], 176 Conn. App. [244–45].’’ The parties filed their respective supplemental briefs on July 8, 2019. 9 The defendant was born in 1977. 10 There is nothing in the record to suggest that Judge Alexander had been provided with the police report, the psychiatric report, or the psychiatric records prior to sentencing, and, thus, Judge Alexander could not have relied on those documents to consider ordering that a competency evaluation and hearing be conducted. 11 We observe that in State v. Mukhtaar, 2019See State v. Mukhtaar, 189 Conn. App. 144 , 150 n.6., 207 A.3d 29 (2019); State v. Jason B., [supra], 176 Conn. App. [244–45].’’ The parties filed their respective supplemental briefs on July 8, 2019. 9 The defendant was born in 1977. 10 There is nothing in the record to suggest that Judge Alexander had been provided with the police report, the psychiatric report, or the psychiatric records prior to sentencing, and, thus, Judge Alexander could not have relied on those documents to consider ordering that a competency evaluation and hearing be conducted. 11 We observe that in State v. Mukhtaar, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Connorgreen2 sentences2009We should do so, however, in the exercise of our supervisory authority over the administration of justice; see, e.g., State v. Connor, 292 Conn. 483 , 518 n.23, 973 A.2d 627 (2009); because the issue is sufficiently important to warrant such an explication, not because the trial court’s ruling on the defendant’s claim was in any way wrong or improper. 2009We should do so, however, in the exercise of our supervisory authority over the administration of justice; see, e.g., State v. Connor, 292 Conn. 483 , 518 n.23, 973 A.2d 627 (2009); because the issue is sufficiently important to warrant such an explication, not because the trial court’s ruling on the defendant’s claim was in any way wrong or improper. | 1 | 1 |
Vickroy v. City of Springfieldgreen1 sentence2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 1 |
Putney v. Consolidated Rail Corp.green1 sentence2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because 2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tabonegreen2 sentences2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because 2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 1 |
Harrison v. Crosbygreen1 sentence2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 1 |
| Sansone v. Cliffordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Clohessy v. Bachelorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Shedrick v. Shedrickgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pepe v. City of New Britaingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Banksgreen2 sentences2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because 2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lawrence
green
2 sentences2019We see no reason to invoke our supervisory powers here. 7 The excerpt in Robles cited by the trial court quotes language that was first set forth by our Supreme Court in State v. Lawrence, 281 Conn. 147 , 156–57, 913 A.2d 428 (2007), in analyzing the parameters of a claim that a sentence is illegal. 8 On June 24, 2019, after the parties had submitted their respective appel- late briefs and following oral argument, we, sua sponte, ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question: ‘‘Whether the facts pleaded by the defendant in support of his motion to correct a 2019We see no reason to invoke our supervisory powers here. 7 The excerpt in Robles cited by the trial court quotes language that was first set forth by our Supreme Court in State v. Lawrence, 281 Conn. 147 , 156–57, 913 A.2d 428 (2007), in analyzing the parameters of a claim that a sentence is illegal. 8 On June 24, 2019, after the parties had submitted their respective appel- late briefs and following oral argument, we, sua sponte, ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question: ‘‘Whether the facts pleaded by the defendant in support of his motion to correct a | 2 | 2009–2019 |
City of Norwalk v. Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations
green
2 sentences2001Id., 453 . 2001Norwalk v. Board of Labor Relations, 206 Conn. 449, 452 , 538 A.2d 694 (1988). | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Baldwin v. New York
green
2 sentences1981Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 74 , 90 S. Ct. 1886 , 26 L. 1981Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 74 , 90 S. Ct. 1886 , 26 L. | 2 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Lockhart
green
1 sentence2021In State v. Lockhart, supra, 298 Conn. 537 , we left for the legisla- ture the ‘‘weighing and balancing [of] the benefits and drawbacks of an electronic recording requirement,’’ and to create ‘‘the parameters of such a rule.’’ Id., 570 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Redding Life Care, LLC v. Town of Redding
neutral
2 sentences2019Additional considerations may be relevant to the analysis, including, for example, whether he was retained by a party with an eye to the present dispute." Id., at 205-206 , 165 A.3d 180 . 2019Additional considerations may be relevant to the analysis, including, for example, whether he was retained by a party with an eye to the present dispute." Id., at 205-206 , 165 A.3d 180 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Daniels
green
2 sentences2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because 2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Daniels
green
2 sentences2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because 2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Luciani v. Stop & Shop Companies, Inc. green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Mendez
green
1 sentence2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Guckian
green
2 sentences2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because 2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Squillante Enterprises, Inc. v. Juck
green
1 sentence2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Mollo
green
1 sentence2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Cator
green
2 sentences2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because 2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Dumas v. Commissioner
green
1 sentence2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Ramirez
green
1 sentence2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Elliott green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. McNellis
green
2 sentences2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because 2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Guckian
green
2 sentences2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because 2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because 2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Mollo
green
2 sentences2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because 2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Barksdale
green
2 sentences2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because 2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Shipp
green
2 sentences2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because 2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Redwine v. Georgia
green
1 sentence2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Hicks v. Fair
green
1 sentence2009State v. Lawrence, supra, 281 Conn. at 158-59 , 913 A.2d 428 . [2] See State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 387 , 542 A.2d 306 (on state's direct appeal, no double jeopardy violation because Practice Book § 935 [now § 43-22] provides "the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal"), after remand for articulation, 209 Conn. 225 , 550 A.2d 885 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 1349 , 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989); State v. Guckian, 27 Conn.App. 225, 245 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992) (on state's appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Golding green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Department of Public Works v. Ecap Construction Co. green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Morris v. Hartford Courant Co. green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| DeLaurentis v. City of New Haven green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Ray v. Mason County Drain Commissioner green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| McHale v. W.B.S. Corp. green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Kuzemka v. Gregory green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.