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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10230471/state-v-sinchak/ ↗

Full Text

1,210 chars

If a party’s interest in finality were a relevant factor,
         the ‘‘well established’’ rule that an order granting a
         motion to open is not a final judgment would not exist.
         Curcio requires much more, in particular, that the
         appellant show that a recognized right will be ‘‘ ‘irre-
         trievably lost’ ’’ and that it will be ‘‘ ‘irreparably harmed’ ’’
         if it cannot take an immediate appeal. Id. The state’s
         interest in finality is not the type of recognized right
         that the second prong of Curcio is intended to protect.
         To the contrary, the state’s interest in seeking reversal
         of the court’s order before a new sentencing hearing
         is no different from that of any party that would prefer
         to appeal from an interlocutory order rather than be
         subject to additional proceedings necessitated by that
         order. Furthermore, no interest of the state will be
         irretrievably lost or irreparably harmed because it will
         have a full opportunity to challenge on appeal the
         court’s decision granting the motion to correct if it is
         aggrieved by the defendant’s resentencing.7

Other Sections in This Document (26)

Full Text