State v. James

44 Citing cases

  1. State v. Obas

    147 Conn. App. 465 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 5 times

    The statutory language appears clear on its face to permit appeals by the state only “with the permission of the [court]....” However, our state's highest court in State v. James, 261 Conn. 395, 408 n. 18, 408–409, 802 A.2d 820 (2002), essentially adopted the reasoning of Justice Shea's dissenting opinion in State v. S & R Sanitation Services, Inc., 202 Conn. 300, 313–16, 521 A.2d 1017 (1987). In S & R Sanitation Services, Inc., Justice Shea opined: “To the extent that the [majority] opinion may rely on the elaborate discussion by the trial court of the grounds upon which it dismissed the information as its statement of ‘considered reason [s]’ for denying permission to appeal, the implication is that, so long as the memorandum of decision gives more than cursory treatment to the issues, a trial judge has absolute discretion to deny permission to appeal under the statute.

  2. Duperry v. Kirk

    877 A.2d 928 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 16 times

    That right is conferred by statute. State v. James, 261 Conn. 395, 404 n. 12, 802 A.2d 820 (2002). The court also noted that there is no rule of practice or a statute providing that a defendant who pleads guilty to a crime must be informed by the court of the right to appeal from the judgment subsequently rendered.

  3. O'Sullivan v. Haught

    348 Conn. 625 (Conn. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Although the certified question in this appeal contemplates only the subject matter jurisdiction of the Appellate Court, we may, in the interest of judicial economy, invoke our supervisory powers, pursuant to Practice Book § 60-2, to address issues outside the scope of the certified question, rather than remand the case to the Appellate Court for consideration of those issues in the first instance. See, e.g., Meadowbrook Center, Inc. v. 636Buchman, 328 Conn. 586, 605 n.9, 181 A.3d 550 (2018) (addressing claim beyond scope of certified question in interest of judicial economy); State v. James, 261 Conn. 395, 410–12, 802 A.2d 820 (2002) (same). The exercise of our supervisory power is appropriate when the record is adequate to allow review of the merits, the parties have briefed the issues, and there is an opportunity to address the issue at oral argument.

  4. State v. Perkins

    271 Conn. 218 (Conn. 2004)   Cited 95 times
    Holding that "the waiver rule is followed in this state"

    It is well settled that a criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to an appeal; rather, that right exists solely by statute. State v. James, 261 Conn. 395, 404 n. 12, 802 A.2d 820 (2002); see also Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 402, 121 S. Ct. 1567, 149 L. Ed. 2d 608 (2001). Put another way, although it is axiomatic that the state may not convict a defendant unless it provides to that defendant certain constitutional safeguards, the right to appeal is not one of those safeguards.

  5. State v. Turner

    267 Conn. 414 (Conn. 2004)   Cited 51 times
    Explaining that the need for an evidentiary hearing requires that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel be raised in a habeas corpus action instead of on direct appeal

    Second, in the context of evaluating whether a court has abused its discretion in denying requests for certification or permission to appeal, we repeatedly have applied the criteria set forth in Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430, 432, 111 S.Ct. 860, 112 L.Ed.2d 956 (1991). See, e.g., State v. James, 261 Conn. 395, 405-10, 802 A.2d 820 (2002) (denial of state's request for permission to appeal from court's ruling that police lacked probable cause to arrest); Seebeck v. State, 246 Conn. 514, 534, 717 A.2d 1161 (1998) (denial of request for certification to appeal from denial of petition for new trial); Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 616, 646 A.2d 126 (1994) (denial of petition for certification to appeal from denial of writ of habeas corpus). "The Lozada inquiry was established in order to determine whether a petitioner has made the requisite `substantial showing of the denial of a federal right' for the issuance of the required certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of federal habeas relief. . . .

  6. State v. James

    887 A.2d 923 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)   Cited 6 times

    The court refused to grant the state permission to appeal. The state appealed from the court's denial of permission. State v. James, 64 Conn. App. 495, 779 A.2d 1288 (2001), rev'd, 261 Conn. 395, 802 A.2d 820 (2002). This court rejected the state's claims and dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, noting that the trial court's grant of permission to appeal under § 54-96 is a jurisdictional prerequisite.

  7. Osuch v. Warden

    2006 Ct. Sup. 20554 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2006)

    Thus the Supreme Court's decision in Ghant v. Commissioner of Corrections, 255 Conn. 1 (2000) setting forth the parameters of counsel's duty to advise a defendant of his right of appeal provides guidance for this court's decision in the area of sentence review. See, e.g., State v. James, 261 Conn. 395, 404 n. 12, 802 A.2d 820 (2002). "The two part Strickland test `applies to claims . . . that counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal . . . [N]o particular set of detailed rules for counsel's challenged conduct can satisfactorily take account of the variety of circumstances faced by defense counsel . . . Rather, courts must judge the reasonableness of counsel's challenged conduct on the facts of a particular case, viewed as of the time of counsel's conduct . . . and [j]udicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential.' . . ."

  8. Mara v. Rilling

    921 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2019)   Cited 90 times
    Holding that officers' "misrepresentations about the strength of the evidence against [the suspect]" did not render subsequent confessions involuntary

    Under both federal and Connecticut law, "probable cause to arrest exists when police officers have knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information of facts and circumstances that are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a crime." Walczyk v. Rio , 496 F.3d at 156 (internal quotation marks omitted); see State v. James , 261 Conn. 395, 415, 802 A.2d 820, 835 (2002). Probable cause does not demand that an officer’s good-faith belief that a person has committed a crime be "correct or more likely true than false."

  9. Zalaski. v. City of Hartford

    723 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2013)   Cited 289 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the police officers' actions were objectively reasonable

    Under both federal and Connecticut law, “probable cause to arrest exists when police officers have knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information of facts and circumstances that are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a crime.” Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d at 156 (internal quotation marks omitted); see State v. James, 261 Conn. 395, 415, 802 A.2d 820 (2002). Thus, probable cause does not demand that an officer's good-faith belief that a suspect has committed or is committing a crime be “correct or more likely true than false.”

  10. James v. Holder

    698 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    James moved to suppress evidence against him, and the proceedings ultimately reached the Connecticut Supreme Court. State v. James, 261 Conn. 395, 802 A.2d 820 (2002). On October 29, 2003, by agreement with the state, James entered a conditional plea of nolo contendere to two counts: one charged a violation of Conn. Gen.Stat.