|
|
| |
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases —
for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case —
for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more.
lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - January 23, 2007
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
State v. Murphy, CR9688132,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Sentence imposed upon petitioner following revocation of his probation was neither inappropriate nor disproportionate and, thus, would not be modified pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 43-23 et seq., and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-194 et seq.; petitioner could not abide by rules of probation and public had to be protected.
|
|
| |
State v. Pranckus, CR98162568,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because the two stabbing deaths involved a senseless dispute over asking people to leave a home as the prisoner could have called the police, the two consecutive 20-year sentences for manslaughter in the first degree, were in accordance with Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 43-23 et seq., and were neither inappropriate nor disproportionate.
|
|
| |
State v. Pysz, CR0451418,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: An inmate who pled nolo contendere and guilty, under Alford, to two counts of risk of injury to a minor, and was sentenced to 15 years' in prison, suspended after six years, was not entitled to a reduction in sentence because the sentence was appropriate, not disproportionate, and complied with Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 43-23 et seq.
|
|
| |
State v. Rivera, CR01553494, CR02556303, CR01554698,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Twenty-four year and 90-day effective sentence was neither inappropriate nor disproportionate and was affirmed pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 43-23 et seq., and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-194 et seq.; petitioner had a long criminal history, had not taken advantage of efforts to reform his behavior, and society needed protection.
|
|
| |
State v. Rodriguez, CR03568020,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Sentence imposed by trial court, upon State's recommendation, of 15 years in prison suspended after six years followed by five years of probation for petitioner's larceny in first degree conviction was not unreasonable and, thus, would not be modified under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 43-23 et seq. and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-194 et seq.
|
|
| |
|
| |
State v. Washington, CR9157315, CR9157319,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because a prisoner's unprovoked shooting could have killed the victim and his subsequent escape was a calculated move to avoid arrest on the underlying shooting, the consecutive sentence was in accordance with Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 43-23 et seq., as the total 30-year sentence was neither inappropriate or disproportionate.
|
|
| |
Szeligowski v. Lowe's Co., CV065004607S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 23, 2007, Decided , January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Customer's complaint could not be amended under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-72(a) to save it as process was not returned until after the two-month period, so return date could not be amended to comply with Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-48(b). Amending return date to comply with Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-46a would make return date further past two-month requirement.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|