State v. Testo

Connecticut Appellate Court

State v. Testo

540 A.2d 76, 14 Conn. App. 256, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 143

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedMarch 31, 1988

Docket6070

StatusPublished

This text of 540 A.2d 76 (State v. Testo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Testo, 540 A.2d 76, 14 Conn. App. 256, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 143 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant is appealing from the trial court’s denial of his motions to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere and to open the judgment rendered against him. The defendant, a pharmacist, had pleaded guilty to one count of vendor fraud in violation of General Statutes §§ 17-83k and 53a-124 (a) (1).

The principal issue raised in this appeal is whether the defendant’s plea was entered voluntarily and intel[257]*257ligently where the defendant claims that he was not advised by his counsel concerning administrative sanctions which could result from his conviction.¹ The trial court, in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere, found there existed no valid reason to withdraw the plea or to open the judgment.

The trial court filed a detailed and legally sound memorandum of decision which indicates that the trial court afforded the defendant a full evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s motions. The court fully analyzed the issues raised, cited the proper authorities and properly found that the defendant failed to prove that misadvice by counsel was grounds to allow withdrawal of the plea or opening of the judgment of conviction. The trial court’s decision articulates the issues involved in this appeal and explains the legal basis for its conclusions. It may be referred to for a detailed discussion of the facts and applicable law.² See Cantor v. Department of Income Maintenance, 12 Conn. App. 435, 437-38, 531 A.2d 606 (1987).

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant is appealing from the trial court’s denial of his motions to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere and to open the judgment rendered against him. The defendant, a pharmacist, had pleaded guilty to one count of vendor fraud in violation of General Statutes §§ 17-83k and 53a-124 (a) (1).

The principal issue raised in this appeal is whether the defendant’s plea was entered voluntarily and intel[257]*257ligently where the defendant claims that he was not advised by his counsel concerning administrative sanctions which could result from his conviction.¹ The trial court, in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere, found there existed no valid reason to withdraw the plea or to open the judgment.

The trial court filed a detailed and legally sound memorandum of decision which indicates that the trial court afforded the defendant a full evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s motions. The court fully analyzed the issues raised, cited the proper authorities and properly found that the defendant failed to prove that misadvice by counsel was grounds to allow withdrawal of the plea or opening of the judgment of conviction. The trial court’s decision articulates the issues involved in this appeal and explains the legal basis for its conclusions. It may be referred to for a detailed discussion of the facts and applicable law.² See Cantor v. Department of Income Maintenance, 12 Conn. App. 435, 437-38, 531 A.2d 606 (1987).

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

540 A.2d 76, 14 Conn. App. 256, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-testo-connappct-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack