The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.
AC38016- Marquez v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "
On appeal, he claims that the habeas court (1) abused its
discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal, and (2)
improperly concluded that the alleged conduct of the prosecutor in the
underlying criminal proceeding did not violate the petitioner’s right to due
process and a fair trial. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion
in denying the petition for certification to appeal, and, accordingly, dismiss
the appeal.")
AC37200- State v. J.M.F.
(“On appeal, the defendant raises the following seven claims:
(1) the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a sanction against him
that precluded him from raising an affirmative defense of mental disease or defect,
ultimately violating his constitutional rights to present a defense and to due
process of law; (2) the trial court erroneously concluded that he unequivocally
invoked his right to self-representation and that he knowingly, intelligently,
and voluntary waived his right to counsel; (3) the trial court deprived him of
his right to due process of law by failing to order, sua sponte, that he
undergo a competency evaluation; (4) the state unconstitutionally interfered
with his right to counsel; (5) the trial court improperly continued to trial
despite the existence of an appellate stay, which rendered the results of the
trial void ab initio; (6) the trial court abused its discretion by not
appointing a special public defender, ultimately violating his constitutional
rights to counsel and to due process of law; and (7) the trial court violated
his rights to due process of law and to present a defense when it refused his
request to instruct the jury on renunciation and diminished capacity. We affirm
the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC37552- State v. Juan C. ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court, Bentivegna,
J., improperly (1) refused to grant his request for a continuance of his trial,
and (2) denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal as to the first count,
sexual assault in the first degree. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in
part and reverse the judgment in part.")
AC38198 - Szynkowicz v. Bonauito-O’Hara ("The plaintiff, Peter Szynkowicz, appeals from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Linda Bonauito-O'Hara, doing business as Linda's Team, William Raveis. The underlying dispute arose when the plaintiff and the seller, Edward Development Company, LLC, entered into a dual agency agreement naming Brenda Hanley, a realtor who worked for the same real estate company as the defendant, to act as their dual agent in connection with locating, purchasing and developing the property known as Lot 7 Meadow Brook Drive in East Haddam. After entering into the dual agency agreement, the plaintiff entered into a real estate contract with the seller to develop a single-family home on the property, which was subsequently cancelled when the seller was unable to complete construction. The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant, whom the plaintiff alleges was also a party to the dual agency agreement, for the return of his deposited moneys advanced to the seller upon the advice of the defendant. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in granting (1) the motion to strike count five of his complaint because he adequately had alleged an action for breach of an oral contract against the defendant, and (2) the motion for summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact exist as to the defendant's liability under counts one, two, three and four of his complaint. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC37548 - Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Cornelius ("The defendant . . . appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered after the entry of a second default for failure to plead. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the present foreclosure action, (2) the trial court erroneously denied his motion to strike the complaint, and (3) the trial court erroneously denied his motion to set aside the second default for failure to plead. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")