Source: https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Default.aspx?CatID=7
Timestamp: 2017-12-16 01:12:57
Document Index: 126267188

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7', '§ 53', '§ 14', '§ 53', '§ 14', '§ 53']

Dec 15 2017 11:40AM by Booth, George
https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=798
AC38124 - State v. Azevedo (Arson in first degree; attempt to commit insurance fraud; attempt to commit larceny in first degree; conspiracy to commit arson in first degree; conspiracy to commit insurance fraud; conspiracy to commit larceny in first degree; "On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) out-of-court statements of a coconspirator that the trial court admitted into evidence constituted inadmissible hearsay and violated the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment to the United States constitution, and (2) that the state's use of cell site location information violated article first, § 7, of the constitution of Connecticut. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC38832 - State v. Smith (Probation; "The defendant, Jacqui Smith, appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation and sentencing him to five years incarceration.The defendant claims that (1) the court improperly denied his motion to dismiss the probation violation charge on the basis that the hearing did not occur within 120 days of his arraignment in violation of General Statutes § 53a-32 (c) and (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove that he had operated a motor vehicle while his driver's license was under suspension in violation of General Statutes § 14-215 (a) and, therefore, he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing. The state counters that, pursuant to State v. Kelley, 164 Conn. App. 232, 137 A.3d 822 (2016), aff'd, 326 Conn. 731, 167 A.3d 961 (2017), the 120 day time frame of § 53a-32 (c) is directory and, additionally, that the court properly found good cause for the delay. The state concedes, however, that there was insufficient evidence for the court to conclude that the defendant had violated § 14-215 (a), and, therefore, under these facts and circumstances, the defendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing. We conclude that the court properly determined that the 120 day time period of § 53a-32 (c) is a nonmandatory "guideline." Further, we agree that a new sentencing hearing is required. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")
https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=795
https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=769
https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=760
https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=746
https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=742
https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=734
https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=739
https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=722
https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=705
https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=703
https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=698
https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=690
https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=686
https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=675
https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=665
https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=653