Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 54 — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE · Chapter 961 — Trial and Proceedings after Conviction
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-82d (2026)

(Formerly Sec. 54-140). Dismissal of charges on failure to grant prisoner speedy trial

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If an action is not assigned for trial within the period of time as provided in section 54-82c, no court of this state shall any longer have jurisdiction thereof, nor shall the untried indictment or information be of any further force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same.

(1957, P.A. 551, S. 2; P.A. 80-313, S. 38.)

History: P.A. 80-313 added specific reference to Sec. 54-139 and made slight change in wording; Sec. 54-140 transferred to Sec. 54-82d in 1981 and reference to Sec. 54-139 revised to reflect its transfer as well.

Annotations to former section 54-140:

Period of time construed to run from completion of delivery of both request and supplemental information. 149 C. 250. Cited. 171 C. 487; 185 C. 118.

Annotations to present section:

Cited. 194 C. 297; Id., 510; 197 C. 166; 198 C. 573. Failure to bring to trial within time limit prescribed by Sec. 54-82c may be waived; statute affects personal jurisdiction not subject matter jurisdiction. 202 C. 93. Cited. 221 C. 921; 224 C. 163.

Cited. 12 CA 1; 14 CA 244; 20 CA 205; 26 CA 698; 28 CA 195; 29 CA 694; 40 CA 757.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1981–2008 · leading case: Craig v. Bronson, 520 A.2d 155 (Conn. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Craig v. Bronson, 520 A.2d 155 (Conn. 1987). · cites it 23× “” The trial court denied the petition on two grounds: (1) that § 54-82d does not require the sanction of dismissal to be imposed where an assignment of the case for trial is made within the 120 day period specified by § 54-82c even though the trial does not commence or the case…”
State v. Toste, 504 A.2d 1036 (Conn. 1986). · cites it 4× “” General Statutes § 54-82c (a). If the procedure is complied with and the case is not assigned for trial within 120 days, then the charges must be dismissed.”
Gaines v. Manson, 481 A.2d 1084 (Conn. 1984). · cites it 2× “When the issue is denial of a right to a speedy trial under article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution, or amendments six and fourteen to the United States constitution, the petitioner who proves his claim is entitled to the extreme *517 remedy of dismissal of the…”
State v. Rosado, 945 A.2d 1028 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 4× “’ General Statutes § 54-82c (a). If the procedure is complied with and the case is not assigned for trial within 120 days, then the charges must be dismissed.”
State v. Foshay, 530 A.2d 611 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987). · cites it 3× “General Statutes § 54-82d provides: “If an action is not assigned for trial within the period of time as provided in section 54-82c, no court of this state shall any longer have jurisdiction thereof, nor shall the untried indictment or information be of any further force or…”
State v. Winer, 945 A.2d 430 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 2× “” *681 General Statutes § 54-82d provides: “If an action is not assigned for trial within the period of time as provided in section 54-82c, no court of this state shall any longer have jurisdiction thereof, nor shall the untried indictment or information be of any further force…”
State v. Antrum, 440 A.2d 839 (Conn. 1981). · cites it 2× “The defendant has appealed from the denial of his motion to dismiss, claiming that the continuances granted were neither reasonable nor necessary and that, therefore, he was entitled to dismissal of the charges against him pursuant to General Statutes §54-140 (now §54-82d), and…”
State v. McCarthy, 496 A.2d 190 (Conn. 1985). · cites it 2× “The trial began on December 1, 1982, eighty-nine days after the receipt of the defendant’s request by the state’s attorney but almost eighteen months after the defendant first submitted his request to the warden.”
State v. Martin, 741 A.2d 337 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999). · cites it 4× “* 2 On November 26, 1996, 152 days after the defendant’s request, he filed a motion to dismiss the charges in *101 all three files pursuant to General Statutes § 54-82d, 3 arguing that dismissal was warranted under statutory and constitutional mandates.”
State v. Harris, 540 A.2d 395 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988). · cites it 4× “The defendant responded by filing a motion to dismiss these charges pursuant to General Statutes § 54-82d 3 claiming that the state had violated General Statutes § 54-82c by failing to try him within 120 days of the filing of his motion for speedy trial.”
State v. Gaston, 860 A.2d 1253 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “) Pursuant to General Statutes § 54-82d, the failure to comply with § 54-82c results in the loss of jurisdiction by the court and requires a dismissal of the charges.”
State v. Milton, 617 A.2d 460 (Conn. 1992). · cites it 4× “Having determined the existence of a statutory violation, the Appellate Court considered whether the trial court was required to dismiss the charges of which the correctional officials had failed to notify the defendant.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
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.