Opinion · Connecticut Appellate Court Opinions
STATE v. REVELO, 252 Conn. 903 (1999)
STATE OF Conn. v. HECTOR REVELO, 743 A.2d 617 (Conn. 1999)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Connecticut Appellate Court Opinions
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut
- Date
- 1999-12-07
- Topic
- general
STATE v. REVELO, 252 Conn. 903 (1999) 743 A.2d 617 STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. HECTOR REVELO (16226)Supreme Court of Connecticut The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 55 Conn. App. 217 (AC 17757), is granted, limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant's claim of judicial vindictiveness subsequent to his plea of nolo contendere, and, if not, were the defendant's due process rights violated when the trial court sentenced him to a greater period of incarceration after the denial of his suppression motion than it would have if he had waived his right to a determination of his suppression claim and entered his nolo plea prior to a determination of that claim?" Alix C. Walmsley, assistant public defender, in support of the petition.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed STATE v. REVELO, 252 Conn. 903 (1999). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
"Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant's claim of judicial vindictiveness subsequent to his plea of nolo contendere, and, if not, were the defendant's due process rights violated when the trial court sentenced him to a greater period of incarceration after the denial of his suppression motion than it would have if he had waived his right to a determination of hisPage 904suppression claim and entered his nolo plea prior to a determination of that claim?"