syllabus defendant in Connecticut

2026The defendant claimed that the Appellate Court had improperly upheld the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his pleas because, during the plea canvass, the trial court did not specifically ask him whether he was knowingly and voluntarily waiving his constitutional rights to a jury trial, to confront his accusers, and against self-incrimination, which he claimed was required by Boykin v. Alabama ( 395 U.S. 238 ).

2026The defendants claimed that the court improperly applied the narrow exception created by our Supreme Court in Saunders v. Briner ( 334 Conn. 135 ) to the general rule that a member of a limited liability company lacks standing to bring a direct action to recover for injuries allegedly suffered by the company.

2026The defendants claimed that the court improperly applied the narrow exception created by our Supreme Court in Saunders v. Briner (334 Conn. 135) to the general rule that a member of a limited liability company lacks standing to bring a direct action to recover for injuries allegedly suffered by the company.

2025He claimed, inter alia, that the court violated his constitutional due process right to cross-examine adverse witnesses by failing to engage in a balancing analysis pursuant to State v. Shakir ( 130 Conn. App. 458 ) before admitting certain hearsay evidence.

2022On appeal, the acquittee claimed that this court had subject matter jurisdiction over his appeal because the trial court’s order denying his motion satisfied at least one prong of the finality test set forth in State v. Curcio ( 191 Conn. 27 ).

2022The defendant claimed that the statements were inadmissible because they were the product of custodial interrogation, and the police had not advised him of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona ( 384 U.S. 436 ).

2021Syllabus The defendant, whose marriage to the plaintiff previously had been dis- solved, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court granting the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the defendant’s pending motions, which included a motion for modification of his alimony, child support and visitation orders, two motions for contempt, a motion for an order to prevent the plaintiff from filing additional motions without leave of the court pursuant to Strobel v. Strobel ( 92 Conn. App. 662 ), a motion to remove the guardian ad litem, and a motion to compel compli- ance with his discovery

2021Syllabus The defendant, who had been convicted of several crimes, including capital felony, appealed to this court, claiming that the trial court erred in denying his request for the appointment of counsel to represent him on a motion to correct an illegal sentence that he had filed, as required by State v. Francis ( 322 Conn. 247 ).

2021The defendant claimed that the trial court erred by failing to appoint counsel pursuant to statute (§ 51-296 (a)) and State v. Casiano ( 282 Conn. 614 ).

2020The defendant claimed that the court improperly concluded that his convictions for sexual assault in the first degree and assault in the first degree, both predicated on liability under Pinkerton v. United States ( 328 U.S. 640 ), did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy when considered in light of his conviction for conspir- acy to commit kidnapping in the first degree.