State v. Holliday

6 Citing cases

  1. Holliday v. Weir

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-cv-1125 (JCH) (D. Conn. Jan. 2, 2018)   Cited 2 times
    In Holliday v. Augustine, No. 3:14-cv-855(SRU), Holliday asserted Bivens claims relating to the unredacted reports and obtaining testimony from Officer Augustine at his state habeas hearing, and FTCA claims for negligence.

    Prior to filing a direct appeal, Holliday sought review of his sentence by the Sentence Review Division of the Superior Court. See State v. Holliday, 982 A.2d 268, 270 (Conn. App. 2009), cert. denied, 989 A.2d 605 (Conn. 2010).

  2. Johnson v. United States

    No. 3:16-cv-00215 (MPS) (D. Conn. Dec. 19, 2016)   Cited 4 times

    While the Connecticut conspiracy statute requires that any member of a conspiracy "commit[ ] an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy," Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-48, an overt act is not a substantial step. State v. Holliday, 118 Conn. App. 35, 41, 982 A.2d 268, 271-72 (2009) ("Attempt to commit robbery in the first degree requires a 'substantial step' in furtherance of the crime, while conspiracy to commit first degree robbery does not."); Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 3.3-1 (Conspiracy - § 53a-48(a) ("Element 2 - Overt Act . . . An overt act is any step, action, or conduct that is taken to achieve or further the objective of the conspiracy.")) (emphasis added); State v. Turner, 24 Conn. App. 264, 269-70 (1991) ("To constitute a substantial step, the conduct must be strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal purpose.

  3. State v. Holliday

    989 A.2d 605 (Conn. 2010)   Cited 1 times

    Decided February 25, 2010 The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 118 Conn. App. 35 (AC 30482), is denied. Dean B. Holliday, pro se, in support of the petition.

  4. State v. Brown

    192 Conn. App. 147 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 5 times

    Because the defendant's claims raise questions of statutory interpretation and the constitutionality of statutes, our review is plenary. See State v. Meadows , 185 Conn. App. 287, 302–303, 197 A.3d 464 (constitutionality of statutes subject to plenary review), cert. granted on other grounds, 330 Conn. 947, 196 A.3d 327 (2018) ; State v. Holliday , 118 Conn. App. 35, 39, 982 A.2d 268 (2009) (statutory interpretation subject to plenary review), cert. denied, 295 Conn. 909, 989 A.2d 605 (2010).I

  5. State v. Franklin

    162 Conn. App. 78 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 12 times
    In Franklin, an eyewitness testified that, while standing in his backyard, he had seen the defendant shoot the victim in the chest in the parking lot of an apartment complex across the street.

    The defendant faced the same punishment under either theory. See State v. Holliday, 118 Conn.App. 35, 42, 982 A.2d 268 (2009) (“[t]he legislature clearly intended attempt ... to commit a class B felony to be punished the same as a class B felony or it would have noted otherwise, as it did with class A felonies”), cert. denied, 295 Conn. 909, 989 A.2d 605 (2010). For this reason, this claim fails.

  6. Holliday v. Warden

    2010 Ct. Sup. 4159 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2009)

    Thereafter, the petitioner filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence with the Court, and Judge Frank D'Addabbo denied the motion to correct the illegal sentence. Thereafter the petitioner appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals for the State of Connecticut, otherwise known as the Appellate Court, and in a decision released thirteen days ago in State v. Holliday reported at 118 Conn.App. 35, the Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the trial Court, Judge D'Addabbo, below and found no error in a decision authored by Judge Lavine. In this matter, with regard to the facts underpinning the petitioner's conviction, the facts as summarized by the Appellate Court in State v. Holliday at Page 244 are summarized as follows.