The Chief Justice shall appoint three judges of the Superior Court to act as a review division of the court and shall designate one of the judges to act as chairman thereof. The clerk of the Superior Court for the judicial district of Hartford shall record the appointments and shall give notice thereof to the clerk of the court for each other judicial district. Said division shall meet at such times and places as its business requires, as determined by the chairman. The decision of any two of the judges shall be sufficient to determine any matter before the review division. No judge may sit or act on a review of a sentence imposed by him and, in any case in which review of a sentence imposed by any of the judges serving on the review division is to be acted on by the division, the Chief Justice may designate another judge to act in place of the judge. The review division is authorized to appoint a secretary and such clerical help as it deems adequate, whose compensation shall be fixed in accordance with section
51-12.
(1957, P.A. 436, S. 1; September, 1957, P.A. 14, S. 1, 6; P.A. 78-280, S. 2, 6, 127; P.A. 80-313, S. 50; P.A. 88-230, S. 1, 12; P.A. 90-98, S. 1, 2; P.A. 93-142, S. 4, 7, 8; P.A. 95-220, S. 4–6.)
History: P.A. 78-280 replaced general references to counties with references to judicial districts and replaced “Hartford county” with “judicial district of Hartford-New Britain”; P.A. 80-313 substituted “may” for “shall” and “the” for “such” or “said” where appearing; P.A. 88-230 replaced “judicial district of Hartford-New Britain” with “judicial district of Hartford”, effective September 1, 1991; P.A. 90-98 changed the effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1991, to September 1, 1993; P.A. 93-142 changed the effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1993, to September 1, 1996, effective June 14, 1993; P.A. 95-220 changed the effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1996, to September 1, 1998, effective July 1, 1995.
Cited. 149 C. 694; 168 C. 623. Constitutionality of section discussed and affirmed. 187 C. 109.
Cited. 1 CA 724; 21 CA 557.
Cited. 25 CS 473. Parties may waive their statutory rights to decision by review board of three judges and agree to accept decision by review board of two judges. 27 CS 316. Cited. 42 CS 371.
Cited. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 416.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
26
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1962–2026 · leading case:
State v. Nardini, 445 A.2d 304 (Conn. 1982).
State v. Nardini, 445 A.2d 304 (Conn. 1982).
· cites it 6× “General Statutes §§ 51-194 through 51-197.”
State v. Rupar, 978 A.2d 502 (Conn. 2009).
· cites it 6× “B The plaintiff next claims that the legislature, in enacting the legislation enabling the review division to review sentences; see General Statutes § 51-194 et seq.; thereby created a liberty interest in convicted persons in receiving a sentence that is proportionate to the…”
State v. Webb, 680 A.2d 147 (Conn. 1996).
· cites it 2× “He argues that our function under the statute is in effect a sentence review function, similar to that of the sentence review division of the Superior Court under General Statutes § 51-194 et seq. The defendant contends that conferring such a function on this court alters the…”
State v. Taylor, 882 A.2d 682 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 2× “There is a vast difference between the relief of correction of a sentence by the judicial authority, pursuant to Practice Book § 43-22, due to an illegal sentence or the imposition of a sentence in an illegal manner and the relief, postsentence, of correction or amendment of a…”
State v. Raucci, 575 A.2d 234 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990).
· cites it 2× “2 The court accomplished this by resentencing the defendant on the first two convictions to consecutive sentences of not less than seven and one-half nor more than fifteen years, and on the third conviction to a sentence of not less than two and one-half nor more than five…”
State v. Wilcox, 936 A.2d 295 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 4× “parallel the sentence review statutes, General Statutes § 51-194 et seq. 2 Accordingly, the circumstances surrounding the enactment of the sentence review statutes can provide insight into the meaning of the rule of practice at issue.”
State v. Fuller, 744 A.2d 931 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000).
· cites it 2× “See General Statutes § 51-194 et seq. Just before sentence was imposed, the defendant, in exercising her right of allocution, made the following statement: “I have done nothing wrong.”
State v. Millhouse, 490 A.2d 517 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Until June 8, 1982, General Statutes § 53a-39 provided a mechanism whereby any definite sentence at any time could be reduced at the discretion of the sentencing judge or court.”
Kohlfuss v. Warden of Connecticut State Prison, 183 A.2d 626 (Conn. 1962).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes § 51-194 provides for the appointment by the chief justice of three judges of the Superior Court to act as a sentence review division of that court.”
State v. Rose, 362 A.2d 813 (Conn. 1975).
· cites it 2× “These convictions and sentences were proper for the consideration of the court not only in fixing the maximum sentence under the habitual offender statute but in fixing the minimum sentence.”
State v. Huey, 476 A.2d 613 (Conn. App. Ct. 1984).
· cites it 2× “8 See General Statutes § 51-194 et seq. The defendant’s claim that the sentence was improper is without merit.”
State v. Coleman, 675 A.2d 887 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996).
“See General Statutes [§§ 51-194 through 51-197].” 33 State v. Baldwin, supra, 224 Conn.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.