Opinion · Supreme Court of Connecticut
State v. Hamilton
225 Conn. 910
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of Connecticut
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut
- Date
- 1993-02-24
- Topic
- general
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 30 Conn. App. 68 (AC 10692), is granted, limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court improperly commingle direct appeal and collateral review standards and thereby arrive at the erroneous and harmful legal conclusion that in order to prevail on a direct appeal claim that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a continuance to obtain new counsel, the defendant must demonstrate ‘specific prejudice’ or claim ‘ineffective assistance of counsel’?”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed State v. Hamilton. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 1 opinion
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 30 Conn. App. 68 (AC 10692), is granted, limited to the following issue:
“Did the Appellate Court improperly commingle direct appeal and collateral review standards and thereby arrive at the erroneous and harmful legal conclusion that in order to prevail on a direct appeal claim that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a continuance to obtain new counsel, the defendant must demonstrate ‘specific prejudice’ or claim ‘ineffective assistance of counsel’?”