unpreserved due process claim in Connecticut

2025Held: This court, having determined that the defendant’s unpreserved due process claim was reviewable pursuant to State v. Golding ( 213 Conn. 233 ), con- cluded that the trial court deprived the defendant of his procedural due process rights under the test established in Mathews v. Eldridge ( 424 U.S. 319 ) by requiring him to proceed with trial in the absence of his counsel of record, and, thus, this court reversed the judgment of the trial court.

2025Held: This court, having determined that the defendant’s unpreserved due process claim was reviewable pursuant to State v. Golding ( 213 Conn. 233 ), con- cluded that the trial court deprived the defendant of his procedural due process rights under the test established in Mathews v. Eldridge ( 424 U.S. 319 ) by requiring him to proceed with trial in the absence of his counsel of record and, thus, this court reversed the judgment of the trial court.

2025Held: This court, having determined that the defendant’s unpreserved due process claim was reviewable pursuant to State v. Golding ( 213 Conn. 233 ), con- cluded that the trial court deprived the defendant of his procedural due process rights under the test established in Mathews v. Eldridge ( 424 U.S. 319 ) by requiring him to proceed with trial in the absence of his counsel of record, and, thus, this court reversed the judgment of the trial court.

2025Held: This court, having determined that the defendant’s unpreserved due process claim was reviewable pursuant to State v. Golding ( 213 Conn. 233 ), con- cluded that the trial court deprived the defendant of his procedural due process rights under the test established in Mathews v. Eldridge ( 424 U.S. 319 ) by requiring him to proceed with trial in the absence of his counsel of record and, thus, this court reversed the judgment of the trial court.

2025G., 198 Conn. App. 170, 196 , 232 A.3d 1110 (2020); see also State v. Lewis, 273 Conn. 509 , 515–16, 871 A.2d 986 (2005) (‘‘to establish the unconstitutionality of the statute as applied to him, it [is] incumbent on the defendant to present a factual record demonstrating how the statute was in fact applied to him’’).

2022In their principal briefs, filed before our Supreme Court issued its decisions in In re Annessa J., In re Vada V. and In re Aisjaha N., the respondents in the present appeals contended that the trial court violated their right to due process by failing to hold a compelling needs hearing pursuant to State v. Jarzbek, 204 Conn. 683 , 529 A.2d 1245 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1061 , 108 S. Ct. 1017 , 98 L.

2022In their principal briefs, filed before our Supreme Court issued its decisions in In re Annessa J., In re Vada V. and In re Aisjaha N., the respondents in the present appeals contended that the trial court violated their right to due process by failing to hold a compelling needs hearing pursuant to State v. Jarzbek, 204 Conn. 683 , 529 A.2d 1245 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1061 , 108 S. Ct. 1017 , 98 L.

2022Our Supreme Court again concluded that the record was inadequate to review the unpreserved due process claim, reiterating that, ‘‘even if [it] were to assume that there is a constitu- tional right to in person confrontation, there is no fac- tual record or factual findings for [the court] to rely on to determine whether that right was violated or whether the trial court correctly concluded that the govern- ment’s interests were sufficiently great to warrant con- ducting the trial virtually.’’ Id., 740 .4 After those decisions were issued, the petitioner moved to dismiss each of the present app

2022Our Supreme Court again concluded that the record was inadequate to review the unpreserved due process claim, reiterating that, ‘‘even if [it] were to assume that there is a constitu- tional right to in person confrontation, there is no fac- tual record or factual findings for [the court] to rely on to determine whether that right was violated or whether the trial court correctly concluded that the govern- ment’s interests were sufficiently great to warrant con- ducting the trial virtually.’’ Id., 740 .4 After those decisions were issued, the petitioner moved to dismiss each of the present app

2022In their principal briefs, filed before our Supreme Court issued its decisions in In re Annessa J., In re Vada V. and In re Aisjaha N., the respondents in the present appeals contended that the trial court violated their right to due process by failing to hold a compelling needs hearing pursuant to State v. Jarzbek, 204 Conn. 683 , 529 A.2d 1245 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1061 , 108 S. Ct. 1017 , 98 L.

2022In their principal briefs, filed before our Supreme Court issued its decisions in In re Annessa J., In re Vada V. and In re Aisjaha N., the respondents in the present appeals contended that the trial court violated their right to due process by failing to hold a compelling needs hearing pursuant to State v. Jarzbek, 204 Conn. 683 , 529 A.2d 1245 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1061 , 108 S. Ct. 1017 , 98 L.

2022In their principal briefs, filed before our Supreme Court issued its decisions in In re Annessa J., In re Vada V. and In re Aisjaha N., the respondents in the present appeals contended that the trial court violated their right to due process by failing to hold a compelling needs hearing pursuant to State v. Jarzbek, 204 Conn. 683 , 529 A.2d 1245 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1061 , 108 S. Ct. 1017 , 98 L.

2021See State v. Obas, 320 Conn. 426 , 431, 440–48, 130 A.3d 252 (2016) (reviewing state’s claim that defendant was precluded from seeking exemption from sex offender regis- tration, which he had raised in motion to modify probation, because he had entered into plea agreement with state); State v. Crouch, 105 Conn. App. 693, 694 , 939 A.2d 632 (2008) (reviewing claim that trial court improperly added condition of probation in violation of terms of plea agreement and in violation of defendant’s constitutional right to due process); State v. Thorp, 57 Conn. App. 112, 114 , 747 A.2d 537 (reviewing cl

2021See State v. Obas, 320 Conn. 426 , 431, 440–48, 130 A.3d 252 (2016) (reviewing state’s claim that defendant was precluded from seeking exemption from sex offender regis- tration, which he had raised in motion to modify probation, because he had entered into plea agreement with state); State v. Crouch, 105 Conn. App. 693, 694 , 939 A.2d 632 (2008) (reviewing claim that trial court improperly added condition of probation in violation of terms of plea agreement and in violation of defendant’s constitutional right to due process); State v. Thorp, 57 Conn. App. 112, 114 , 747 A.2d 537 (reviewing cl

2021See State v. Obas, 320 Conn. 426 , 431, 440–48, 130 A.3d 252 (2016) (reviewing state’s claim that defendant was precluded from seeking exemption from sex offender regis- tration, which he had raised in motion to modify probation, because he had entered into plea agreement with state); State v. Crouch, 105 Conn. App. 693, 694 , 939 A.2d 632 (2008) (reviewing claim that trial court improperly added condition of probation in violation of terms of plea agreement and in violation of defendant’s constitutional right to due process); State v. Thorp, 57 Conn. App. 112, 114 , 747 A.2d 537 (reviewing cl

2021See State v. Obas, 320 Conn. 426 , 431, 440–48, 130 A.3d 252 (2016) (reviewing state’s claim that defendant was precluded from seeking exemption from sex offender regis- tration, which he had raised in motion to modify probation, because he had entered into plea agreement with state); State v. Crouch, 105 Conn. App. 693, 694 , 939 A.2d 632 (2008) (reviewing claim that trial court improperly added condition of probation in violation of terms of plea agreement and in violation of defendant’s constitutional right to due process); State v. Thorp, 57 Conn. App. 112, 114 , 747 A.2d 537 (reviewing cl

2021See State v. Obas, 320 Conn. 426 , 431, 440–48, 130 A.3d 252 (2016) (reviewing state’s claim that defendant was precluded from seeking exemption from sex offender regis- tration, which he had raised in motion to modify probation, because he had entered into plea agreement with state); State v. Crouch, 105 Conn. App. 693, 694 , 939 A.2d 632 (2008) (reviewing claim that trial court improperly added condition of probation in violation of terms of plea agreement and in violation of defendant’s constitutional right to due process); State v. Thorp, 57 Conn. App. 112, 114 , 747 A.2d 537 (reviewing cl

2021See State v. Obas, 320 Conn. 426 , 431, 440–48, 130 A.3d 252 (2016) (reviewing state’s claim that defendant was precluded from seeking exemption from sex offender regis- tration, which he had raised in motion to modify probation, because he had entered into plea agreement with state); State v. Crouch, 105 Conn. App. 693, 694 , 939 A.2d 632 (2008) (reviewing claim that trial court improperly added condition of probation in violation of terms of plea agreement and in violation of defendant’s constitutional right to due process); State v. Thorp, 57 Conn. App. 112, 114 , 747 A.2d 537 (reviewing cl

2019For example, in State v. Shakir , supra, 130 Conn. App. at 468 , 22 A.3d 1285 , this court noted that the right to confront a witness in a violation of probation hearing is not absolute.

2019For example, in State v. Shakir , supra, 130 Conn. App. at 468 , 22 A.3d 1285 , this court noted that the right to confront a witness in a violation of probation hearing is not absolute.