State v. Sherman, No. Cr10-188-028 (Nov. 5, 1990)

Connecticut Superior Court

State v. Sherman, No. Cr10-188-028 (Nov. 5, 1990)

1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 3620

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 5, 1990

DocketNo. CR10-188-028

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 3620 (State v. Sherman, No. Cr10-188-028 (Nov. 5, 1990)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Sherman, No. Cr10-188-028 (Nov. 5, 1990), 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 3620 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO ADVISE DEFENDANT The State's Attorney, at the conclusion of the probable cause hearing conducted in accordance with Conn. Gen. State.54-46a, at which hearing the court found probable cause, moved the court to advise the defendant that if he did not institute an appeal from the court's determination of probable cause, the defendant would have waived his rights in that regard.

The court, upon the stipulation of the parties, reserved questions related to that motion to the Supreme Court. On October 22, 1990, the Supreme Court, acting sua sponte, declined to entertain the reservation and remanded the matter to this court for further proceedings.

On the the authority of State of Connecticut vs. Anthony Atkins, 203 Conn. 33 (1987), the State's motion to advise the defendant is denied.

Koletsky, J.

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO ADVISE DEFENDANT The State's Attorney, at the conclusion of the probable cause hearing conducted in accordance with Conn. Gen. State.54-46a, at which hearing the court found probable cause, moved the court to advise the defendant that if he did not institute an appeal from the court's determination of probable cause, the defendant would have waived his rights in that regard.

The court, upon the stipulation of the parties, reserved questions related to that motion to the Supreme Court. On October 22, 1990, the Supreme Court, acting sua sponte, declined to entertain the reservation and remanded the matter to this court for further proceedings.

On the the authority of State of Connecticut vs. Anthony Atkins, 203 Conn. 33 (1987), the State's motion to advise the defendant is denied.

Koletsky, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 3620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sherman-no-cr10-188-028-nov-5-1990-connsuperct-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack