State v. Bozelko, 987 A.2d 1102 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 7דIn docket number CR-05-128811, the defendant was convicted of larceny in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-124; identity theft in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-129d; illegal use of a credit card in violation of § 53a-128d; and…”
State v. Schovanec, 163 A.3d 581 (Conn. 2017). · cites it 4דThe defendant, Frank Schovanec, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of identity theft in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-129d, credit card theft in violation of General Statutes § 53a-128c(a), illegal use of a credit…”
State v. Sweet, 280 A.3d 1243 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 5דSweet, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of larceny in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-124 (a) (2),1 and one count of identity theft in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-129d (a).2 On…”
State v. Jerrell R., 202 A.3d 1044 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2ד3d 581 , the defendant was convicted of identity theft in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-129d, credit card theft in violation of General Statutes § 53a-128c (a), illegal use of a credit card in violation of General Statutes § 53a-128d (2), and larceny in…”
State v. Schiller, 972 A.2d 272 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 4דto 2003) § 53a-129a and five counts of identity theft in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-129d. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and (2) the state’s improper comments *191 during closing…”
State v. Reynolds, 11 A.3d 198 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 2ד” General Statutes § 53a-129d provides: “(a) A person is guilty of identity theft in the third degree when such person commits identity theft, as defined in section 53a-129a.”
State v. Palmenta, 144 A.3d 503 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 2דCR-07-125614-S, the defendant [pleaded] guilty to burglary in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-103 ; identity theft in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-129d ; and larceny in the fifth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-125.”
State v. Hudson, 998 A.2d 1272 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2דHudson, with two counts of credit card theft in violation of General Statutes § 53a-128c (a), three counts of identity theft in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-129d (a) and three counts of credit card forgery in violation of General Statutes § 53a-128c…”
State v. Thompson, 996 A.2d 1218 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 4ד[5] NOTES [1] The defendant was found not guilty of ten counts of identity theft in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-129d and one count of identity theft in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-129c(a).”
State v. Bozelko, 108 A.3d 262 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 3דIn docket number CR-05-128811, the defendant was convicted of larceny in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-124; identity theft in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-129d; illegal use of a credit card in violation of § 53a- 128d; and…”
Bozelko v. Comm'r of Corr., 196 Conn. App. 627 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 2ד1 The petitioner was convicted, after a jury trial, of attempt to commit larceny in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-122 and 53a-49; larceny in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a- 124; two counts of larceny in the fifth degree in…”
Palmenta v. Comm'r of Corr., No. AC34810 (Conn. App. Ct. Sept. 9, 2014). · cites it 2דHe also pleaded guilty in docket number CR-07-125614 to burglary in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-103, iden- tity theft in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-129d, and larceny in the fifth degree in violation of General Statutes §…”
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.