Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. STEPHEN CASSIDY (AC 20455)
Lavery, C. J., and Mihalakos and Stoughton, Js. Argued January 24--officially released March 20, 2001 Counsel

Del Atwell, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Timothy J. Sugrue, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Jonathan C. Benedict, state's attorney, Maureen Platt Temchin, assistant state's attorney, and Peter Anthopolos, former special deputy assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Opinion

LAVERY, C. J. The defendant, Stephen Cassidy, appeals from the judgment of the trial court sentencing him to the statutory maximum for the crime of violation of probation. The defendant claims that the court improperly (1) imposed the maximum sentence and (2) failed to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea to the violation of probation charge. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts are necessary for our resolution of this appeal. In 1993, the defendant was convicted of failure to appear in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree and unlawful restraint in the first degree. On appeal, our Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and ordered a new trial on all but the failure to appear charge.1 On December 19, 1996, the defendant pleaded guilty to the crimes of failure to appear in the first degree in violation of General Statutes

Download State v. Cassidy.pdf

Connecticut Law