State v. Capozziello

Connecticut Appellate Court

State v. Capozziello

493 A.2d 902, 4 Conn. App. 251

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJune 18, 1985

Docket3358

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 493 A.2d 902 (State v. Capozziello) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Capozziello, 493 A.2d 902, 4 Conn. App. 251 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant pleaded guilty to larceny in the first degree by receiving stolen property in violation of General Statutes § 53a-122 (a) (2) after plea negotiations. After canvassing the defendant, the trial court accepted the plea of guilty under the Alford1 doctrine, and continued the case for sentencing. Before sentencing, through new counsel the defendant moved to withdraw the plea of guilty, claiming various infirmities in the trial court’s acceptance of that plea. The trial court denied the motion and sentenced the defendant. From judgment following that denial, the defendant has appealed to this court.

After reviewing the record and transcript in this matter, we find no basis on which to disturb the judgment of the trial court.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant pleaded guilty to larceny in the first degree by receiving stolen property in violation of General Statutes § 53a-122 (a) (2) after plea negotiations. After canvassing the defendant, the trial court accepted the plea of guilty under the Alford1 doctrine, and continued the case for sentencing. Before sentencing, through new counsel the defendant moved to withdraw the plea of guilty, claiming various infirmities in the trial court’s acceptance of that plea. The trial court denied the motion and sentenced the defendant. From judgment following that denial, the defendant has appealed to this court.

After reviewing the record and transcript in this matter, we find no basis on which to disturb the judgment of the trial court.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

493 A.2d 902, 4 Conn. App. 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-capozziello-connappct-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack