State v. Hamilton

621 A.2d 290, 225 Conn. 910, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 90
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided February 24, 1993·No. SC 14704·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 30 Conn. App. 68 (AC 10692), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court improperly commingle direct appeal and collateral review standards and thereby arrive at the erroneous and harmful legal conclusion that in order to prevail on a direct appeal claim that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a continuance to obtain new counsel, the defendant must demonstrate ‘specific prejudice’ or claim ‘ineffective assistance of counsel’?”

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

State v. Hamilton, 621 A.2d 290, 225 Conn. 910, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 90 (Colo. 1993).

621 A.2d 290 (State v. Hamilton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Hamilton
636 A.2d 760 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1994)