State v. Roy

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Roy

358 A.2d 699, 171 Conn. 732

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided June 1, 1976·Published

Opinion

It appearing that the defendant in the above-entitled case has failed to prosecute his appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County with proper [733] diligence, it is, under Practice Book § 696, ordered by the Supreme Court, suo motu, that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed unless the defendant files his brief on or before August 12, 1976.

Donald A. Browne, state’s attorney, for the appel-lee (state). Clement F. Naples, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Argued June 1 decided June 1, 1976

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

It appearing that the defendant in the above-entitled case has failed to prosecute his appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County with proper [733] diligence, it is, under Practice Book § 696, ordered by the Supreme Court, suo motu, that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed unless the defendant files his brief on or before August 12, 1976.

Donald A. Browne, state’s attorney, for the appel-lee (state). Clement F. Naples, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Argued June 1 decided June 1, 1976

State v. Roy, 358 A.2d 699, 171 Conn. 732 (Colo. 1976).

Pincite

358 A.2d 699 (State v. Roy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.