State v. Hamilton
621 A.2d 290, 225 Conn. 910, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 90
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedFebruary 24, 1993
DocketSC 14704
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases
This text of 621 A.2d 290 (State v. Hamilton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
State v. Hamilton, 621 A.2d 290, 225 Conn. 910, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 90 (Colo. 1993).
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
Related
State v. Hamilton
636 A.2d 760 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1994)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
621 A.2d 290, 225 Conn. 910, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hamilton-conn-1993.