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. FRANCISCO JIMENEZ (AC 31920)
Harper, Lavine and Beach, Js. Argued January 19--officially released April 5, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain, geographical area number fifteen, Strackbein, J. [motion to correct illegal sentence]; D'Addabbo, J. [application for appointment of counsel].) Francisco (defendant). Jimenez, pro se, the appellant

Melissa L. Streeto, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Scott J. Murphy, state's attorney, and Paul N. Rotiroti, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Opinion

PER CURIAM. The defendant, Francisco Jimenez,1 appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying in part his motion to correct an illegal sentence2 and denying his application for the appointment of appellate counsel. The defendant claims that, insofar as the court denied his motion to correct and his application for the appointment of counsel, the court abused its discretion. As to that portion of the appeal concerning the motion to correct, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. We dismiss that portion of the appeal concerning the application for the appointment of counsel. Following a trial by jury, the defendant was convicted of possession of narcotics with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes

Download State v. Jimenez.pdf

Connecticut Law