State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- Citation
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- Parent Document
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2024-11-05
Other Sections in This Document (26)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
- State v. Sinchak, 229 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
Full Text
983 charsSubstitute information charging the defendant with
one count of the crime of murder and with two counts
of the crime of kidnapping in the first degree, brought
to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Water-
bury and tried to the jury before Murray, J.; verdict
and judgment of guilty; thereafter, the court, Preleski,
J., granted the defendant’s motion to correct an illegal
sentence; subsequently, the court, Preleski, J., denied
the state’s motion for permission to appeal, and the
state appealed to this court; thereafter, the defendant
filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.
John Cizik, Jr., and Laila M. G. Haswell, senior assis-
tant public defenders, in support of the motion.
Timothy F. Costello, supervisory assistant state’s
attorney, in opposition to the motion.
Opinion