 |
|
 |
|
|
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 v. Roy Wisti # 333133, CR0287079, CR0290043,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 28, 2006, Decided , February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When petitioner violated Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53-21(a)(1) and 53a-196d(a)(2) by asking a 12 year old to undress at a window and by possessing child pornography, his sentence of 5 years with 5 years' probation was not disproportionate or inappropriate under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 43-23 et seq. and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-194 et seq.
|
|||||
| State v. Stepney, AC 25415,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 28, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's objection was limited to admissibility as constancy of accusation evidence, he failed to preserve claim that testimony was improperly admitted under medical treatment hearsay exception. Defendant failed to provide analysis supporting his assertion that his claim was of constitutional magnitude involving a fundamental right.
|
|||||
| State v. Tate, CR00157054,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant made a strong claim that a total effective sentence of 36 years' incarceration was disproportionate, he was not given the maximum sentence despite his criminal record; consequently, the sentencing court's actions were in the parameters of Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 43-23 et seq. and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-194 et seq.
|
|||||
| State v. Williams, CR98473727,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the inmate was sentenced consecutively to 12 years on two counts of assault on a peace officer, the sentence, taking into account the inmate's criminal history and the nature of the offenses, was neither inappropriate nor disproportionate under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 43-23 et seq. and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-194 et seq.
|
|||||
| State v. Zapatka, CR01299190, CR0090446,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 20 AT NORWALK, February 28, 2006, Decided , February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following a probation violation after conviction on charges related to possession of child pornography, 10-year suspended sentence after 7 years with 25 months' probation was not inappropriate or disproportionate under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 43-23 et seq. and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-194 et seq., as possession victimized children.
|
|||||
| Vanacore v. Vanacore, 92468; FA040351816SFA040351816S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 28, 2006, Decided , February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court entered a dissolution judgment; after determining that the parties' agreed upon parenting plan was in the children's best interests, the court incorporated it as its custody order; the court then entered an alimony award under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-82 and a child support award under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-84 and the statutory guidelines.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
