Huff v. Armstrong, No. Cv 99 059 25 24 (Jul. 20, 2000)

Connecticut Superior Court

Huff v. Armstrong, No. Cv 99 059 25 24 (Jul. 20, 2000)

2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 8965

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 20, 2000

DocketNo. CV 99 059 25 24

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 8965 (Huff v. Armstrong, No. Cv 99 059 25 24 (Jul. 20, 2000)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Huff v. Armstrong, No. Cv 99 059 25 24 (Jul. 20, 2000), 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 8965 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This is a petition for habeas corpus in which the petitioner seeks restoration of his appellate rights. Following a hearing on July 18, 2000 at which the petitioner testified, the court finds that the defendant pleaded nolo contendere for the express purpose of appealing the denial of a Motion to Suppress to the Appellate Court. Prior to sentencing the defendant advised his attorney, Gerald M. Klein, that he wished to appeal. Five days after he was sentenced, he was transferred from Hartford Correctional Center to Walker RSMU in Suffield. His personal papers, including the preprinted "Intent to Appeal" form given to him by the Clerk, was not sent up to Walker for at least one and a half weeks. The petitioner did not know how to file the appeal form, attempted to contact his counselor but was unable to do so within the 20 day appeal period.

The court finds, based upon the totality of the's?, evidence, that the petitioner did not deliberately bypass a direct appeal and that if he is not allowed to appeal, his due process rights under the Connecticut and federal constitutions would be violated. Accordingly, under the authority of State v. Phidd, 42 Conn. App. 17, 28, 29 (1996), the petition is hereby granted, and the petitioner's appellate rights are hereby restored.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This is a petition for habeas corpus in which the petitioner seeks restoration of his appellate rights. Following a hearing on July 18, 2000 at which the petitioner testified, the court finds that the defendant pleaded nolo contendere for the express purpose of appealing the denial of a Motion to Suppress to the Appellate Court. Prior to sentencing the defendant advised his attorney, Gerald M. Klein, that he wished to appeal. Five days after he was sentenced, he was transferred from Hartford Correctional Center to Walker RSMU in Suffield. His personal papers, including the preprinted "Intent to Appeal" form given to him by the Clerk, was not sent up to Walker for at least one and a half weeks. The petitioner did not know how to file the appeal form, attempted to contact his counselor but was unable to do so within the 20 day appeal period.

The court finds, based upon the totality of the's?, evidence, that the petitioner did not deliberately bypass a direct appeal and that if he is not allowed to appeal, his due process rights under the Connecticut and federal constitutions would be violated. Accordingly, under the authority of State v. Phidd, 42 Conn. App. 17, 28, 29 (1996), the petition is hereby granted, and the petitioner's appellate rights are hereby restored.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 8965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huff-v-armstrong-no-cv-99-059-25-24-jul-20-2000-connsuperct-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack