State v. Revelo

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Revelo

743 A.2d 617, 252 Conn. 903, 1999 Conn. LEXIS 445

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedDecember 7, 1999

DocketSC 16226

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 743 A.2d 617 (State v. Revelo) 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. Revelo, 743 A.2d 617, 252 Conn. 903, 1999 Conn. LEXIS 445 (Colo. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 55 Conn. App. 217 (AC 17757), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant’s claim of judicial vindictiveness subsequent to his plea of nolo contendere, and, if not, were the defendant’s due process rights violated when the trial court sentenced him to a greater period of incarceration after the denial of his suppression motion than it would have if he had waived his right to a determination of his [904]*904suppression claim and entered his nolo plea prior to a determination of that claim?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16226. Alix C. Walmsley, assistant public defender, in support of the petition. LeonF. Dalbec, Jr., assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided December 7, 1999

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

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 55 Conn. App. 217 (AC 17757), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant’s claim of judicial vindictiveness subsequent to his plea of nolo contendere, and, if not, were the defendant’s due process rights violated when the trial court sentenced him to a greater period of incarceration after the denial of his suppression motion than it would have if he had waived his right to a determination of his [904]*904suppression claim and entered his nolo plea prior to a determination of that claim?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16226. Alix C. Walmsley, assistant public defender, in support of the petition. LeonF. Dalbec, Jr., assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided December 7, 1999

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

743 A.2d 617, 252 Conn. 903, 1999 Conn. LEXIS 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-revelo-conn-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack