State v. Misenti

7 Citing cases

  1. In re Brooklyn O.

    196 Conn. App. 543 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020)   Cited 4 times

    Any challenge to that order is thus not properly before this court. See State v. Misenti , 112 Conn. App. 562, 563–64 n.1, 963 A.2d 696, cert. denied, 291 Conn. 904, 967 A.2d 1220 (2009). The court further found that it was not in the minor child's best interest to revoke the commitment.

  2. State v. Misenti

    291 Conn. 904 (Conn. 2009)   Cited 1 times

    Decided March 31, 2009 The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 112 Conn. App. 562 (AC 28872), is denied. Jeremy S. Donnelly, in support of the petition.

  3. McMahon v. City of Middletown

    181 Conn. App. 68 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 4 times

    " State v. Santana , supra, at 468, 97 A.3d 963. Ordinarily, our appellate courts review claims that are functionally raised "only when a similar claim was raised in the trial court and the record was adequate to review the claim." State v. Misenti , 112 Conn. App. 562, 567, 963 A.2d 696, cert. denied, 291 Conn. 904, 967 A.2d 1220 (2009). In his reply brief, the plaintiff also suggests, for the first time, two alternative grounds for review of this nonconstitutional claim.

  4. McMahon v. City of Middletown

    AC 38678 (Conn. App. Ct. Apr. 17, 2018)

    " State v. Santana, supra, 468. Ordinarily, our appellate courts review claims that are functionally raised "only when a similar claim was raised in the trial court and the record was adequate to review the claim." State v. Misenti, 112 Conn. App. 562, 567, 963 A.2d 696, cert. denied, 291 Conn. 904, 967 A.2d 1220 (2009). In his reply brief, the plaintiff also suggests, for the first time, two alternative grounds for review of this nonconstitutional claim.

  5. Conn. Bank v. Munsill-Borden Mansion, LLC

    147 Conn. App. 30 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 5 times

    Additionally, the record indicates that the court neither considered nor ruled on any provision of the UCC. Indeed, the record is wholly devoid of any reference, express or implied, to the UCC. Accordingly, we decline to review the defendants' unpreserved UCC claim. See State v. Misenti, 112 Conn.App. 562, 566, 963 A.2d 696, cert. denied, 291 Conn. 904, 967 A.2d 1220 (2009). The judgment is affirmed.

  6. State v. Pettigrew

    117 Conn. App. 173 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 1 times

    " (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Misenti, 112 Conn. App. 562, 567-68, 963 A.2d 696, cert. denied, 291 Conn. 904, 967 A.2d 1220 (2009). The defendant argues that the court's finding that he sold heroin to Coreano was clearly erroneous.

  7. State v. Burgos-Torres

    114 Conn. App. 12 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 9 times

    " (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Misenti, 112 Conn.App. 562, 566, 963 A.2d 696 (2009). In this case, the defendant also has failed to request review of this claim under State v. Golding,supra, 213 Conn. at 239-40, 567 A.2d 823, or the plain error doctrine.