State v. Henderson

28 A.3d 993, 302 Conn. 938
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided October 4, 2011·No. SC 18860X01·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

28 A.3d 993 (2011)
302 Conn. 938

STATE of Connecticut,
v.
Mitchell HENDERSON.

SC 18860X01

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Decided October 4, 2011.

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

State v. Henderson, 28 A.3d 993, 302 Conn. 938 (Colo. 2011).

28 A.3d 993 (State v. Henderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Henderson
Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2014
State v. Martin M.
70 A.3d 135 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2013)
State v. Kokkinakos
66 A.3d 936 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2013)
Antogiovanni v. America's Homes and Communities Real Estate, LLC
28 A.3d 993 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2011)