State v. Henderson
This text of 28 A.3d 993 (State v. Henderson) 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.
Opinion
STATE of Connecticut,
v.
Mitchell HENDERSON.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Emily Graner Sexton, special deputy assistant state's attorney, in support of the cross petition.
Katharine S. Goodbody, assigned counsel, in opposition.
The cross petition by the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 130 Conn.App. 435, 24 A.3d 35, is granted, limited to the following issues:
"1. Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the defendant's claim fell within the purview of Practice Book § 43-22, and that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence?
"2. If the answer to question one is affirmative, did the Appellate Court properly determine that the decision in State v. Bell, 283 Conn. 748, 931 A.2d 198 (2007), does not apply retroactively to this case?"
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
28 A.3d 993, 302 Conn. 938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-henderson-conn-2011.