State v. Morant

11 Citing cases

  1. State v. Ramos

    579 A.2d 560 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990)   Cited 10 times

    State v. Crenshaw, supra; 308-309 [ 210 Conn. 304, 554 A.2d 1074 (1989)]; Szarwak v. Warden, 167 Conn. 10, 23, 355 A.2d 49 (1974)." State v. Morant, 20 Conn. App. 630 633, 569 A.2d 1140 (1990). The record reveals that on September 29, 1989, the original sentencing date, the defendant gave the following reasons for withdrawing his plea: (1) surprise at the plea agreement, (2) "plenty of promises which never happened," and (3) intimidation, purportedly by his own counsel.

  2. State v. Morant

    576 A.2d 547 (Conn. 1990)

    Decided June 29, 1990 The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 20 Conn. App. 630, is denied. Brian M. O `Connell, in support of the petition.

  3. State v. Aquino

    89 Conn. App. 395 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 25 times
    Controlling authority at time of petitioner's guilty pleas indicated “effective assistance of counsel may be rendered without advising a client whether deportation will result from a guilty plea”

    (Citations omitted.) State v. Morant, 20 Conn. App. 630, 633, 569 A.2d 1140, cert. denied, 215 Conn. 818, 576 A.2d 547 (1990).Practice Book ? 39-27 provides: "The grounds for allowing the defendant to withdraw his or her plea of guilty after acceptance are as follows:

  4. State v. Irala

    68 Conn. App. 499 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 34 times
    Concluding that "[t]he impact of a plea's immigration consequences on a defendant, while potentially great, is not of constitutional magnitude and cannot transform this collateral consequence into a direct consequence of the plea,' " quoting State v. Malcolm, supra, 663 n.12

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gundel, 56 Conn. App. 805, 812, 746 A.2d 204, cert. denied, 253 Conn. 906, 753 A.2d 941 (2000); State v. Morant, 20 Conn. App. 630, 633, 569 A.2d 1140, cert. denied, 215 Conn. 818, 576 A.2d 547 (1990). "In determining whether the trial court [has] abused its discretion, this court must make every reasonable presumption in favor of [the correctness of] its action.

  5. State v. Cooper

    738 A.2d 1125 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999)   Cited 5 times
    In State v. Cooper, supra, 55 Conn. App. 95, and State v. Casado, supra, 42 Conn. App. 371, the Appellate Court rejected claims similar to the defendant's arguments.

    State v. Crenshaw, [ 210 Conn. 304, 308-309, 554 A.2d 1074 (1989)]; Szarwak v. Warden, 167 Conn. 10, 23, 355 A.2d 49 (1974)." State v. Morant, 20 Conn. App. 630, 633, 569 A.2d 1140, cert. denied, 215 Conn. 818, 576 A.2d 547 (1990). "It is axiomatic that unless a plea of guilty is made knowingly and voluntarily, it has been obtained in violation of due process and is therefore voidable.

  6. State v. Drakeford

    736 A.2d 912 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999)   Cited 3 times

    State v. Crenshaw, [ 210 Conn. 304, 308-309, 554 A.2d 1074 (1989)]; Szarwak v. Warden, 167 Conn. 10, 23, 355 A.2d 49 (1974)." State v. Morant, 20 Conn. App. 630, 633, 569 A.2d 1140, cert. denied, 215 Conn. 818, 576 A.2d 547 (1990). "It is axiomatic that unless a plea of guilty is made knowingly and voluntarily, it has been obtained in violation of due process and is therefore voidable.

  7. State v. Peterson

    51 Conn. App. 645 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999)   Cited 14 times

    "Where the record of the plea proceeding and other information in the court file conclusively establish that the motion is without merit, the trial court may dispose of the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. State v. Torres, 182 Conn. 176, 185, 438 A.2d 46 (1980), citing Fontaine v. United States, 411 U.S. 213, 215, 93 S.Ct. 1461, 36 L.Ed.2d 169 (1973); see also State v. Morant, 20 Conn. App. 630, 633, 569 A.2d 1140 [cert. denied, 215 Conn. 818, 576 A.2d 547] (1990)." State v. Safford, supra, 22 Conn. App. 534-35.

  8. State v. Dixon

    592 A.2d 406 (Conn. App. Ct. 1991)   Cited 12 times
    In State v. Dixon, 25 Conn. App 3 (1999), two New Haven police officers on patrol observed a man behaving suspiciously while sitting alone in the rear seat of a car that was parked with the motor running and in an area that was known by the police as a high crime area.

    A trial court's decision to deny a motion to withdraw a plea is reversible only on a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Morant, 20 Conn. App. 630, 633, 569 A.2d 1140, cert. denied, 215 Conn. 818, 576 A.2d 547 (1990); State v. Rish, supra, 451. "An evidentiary hearing is not required if the record of the plea proceeding and other information in the court file conclusively establishes that the motion is without merit . . . .

  9. State v. Safford

    22 Conn. App. 531 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990)   Cited 15 times
    In Safford, we rejected the state's argument that the trial court's failure to hold an evidentiary hearing was not reviewable because the defendant did not request an evidentiary hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea.

    We are, therefore, obliged to review it. After a guilty plea is accepted but before the imposition of sentence, the court is obligated to permit withdrawal upon proof of one of the grounds in Practice Book 721. Where the record of the plea proceeding and other information in the court file conclusively establish that the motion is without merit, the trial court may dispose of the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. State v. Torres, 182 Conn. 176, 185, 438 A.2d 46 (1980), citing Fontaine v. United States, 411 U.S. 213, 215, 93 S.Ct. 1461, 36 L.Ed.2d 169 (1973); see also State v. Morant, 20 Conn. App. 630, 633, 569 A.2d 1140 (1990). if, however, any specific allegations of fact, taken as true, furnish a basis for withdrawal of the plea under 721 and are not conclusively refuted by the record of the plea proceedings and other information contained in the court file, an evidentiary hearing is required.

  10. Sherbo v. Manson

    21 Conn. App. 172 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990)   Cited 52 times

    The petitioner has failed to show that the administration of these medications clouded his judgment so as to cause a miscarriage of justice. See id., 1000; Bowers v. Warden, supra, 441; see also State v. Morant, 20 Conn. App. 630, 633, 569 A.2d 1140 (1990).