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

718 chars

In this opinion the other judges concurred.
            7
              The state also argues that Curcio’s second prong is satisfied because
         ‘‘the new sentencing proceeding almost certainly will not be before the
         original judge who observed the criminal trial. One cannot contend that
         review of the cold transcript record of the original trial and sentencing is
         an adequate proxy to preserve the state’s interest in finality.’’ This argument
         merits little discussion. The state will have an opportunity to make a full
         presentation at the new sentencing hearing and will not be limited to present-
         ing the transcripts of the original trial and sentencing.

Other Sections in This Document (26)

Full Text