D'Amico v. Reincke
| Decision Date | 07 December 1967 |
| Citation | 236 A.2d 914,155 Conn. 627 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Joseph D'AMICO v. Frederick G. REINCKE, Warden, Connecticut State Prison. |
David M. Borden, Special Public Defender, for appellant (plaintiff).
Robert K. Walsh, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was George R. Tiernan, State's Atty., for appellee (defendant).
Before ALCORN, HOUSE, COTTER, THIM and COVELLO, JJ.
In 1958, the plaintiff was arrested pursuant to a Superior Court bench warrant issued on an application unsupported by oath or affirmation. Thereafter, he was presented in the Superior Court and pleaded not guilty to a charge of breaking and entering with criminal intent and, following a court trial, was convicted, sentenced to, and imprisoned in the Connecticut reformatory. In 1960, he was again presented in Superior Court and pleaded guilty to a count of breaking and entering with criminal intent and to a count charging him with being a second offender. He was sentenced to the state prison, where he is now confined. In May, 1965, he brought this petition for habeas corpus, acting pro se. The writ issued, and counsel was appointed to represent him. The petition alleged the imprisonment to be illegal and in violation of the fourth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments to the constitution of the United States and of article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution (). The claim is that the arrest prior to the 1958 conviction was illegal, that, therefore, that conviction cannot stand, and that consequently he was improperly convicted as a second offender in 1960. The claim, under the sixth amendment, that he was 'not adequately represented by counsel' has been abandoned. State v. Grimes, 154 Conn. 314, 317, 228 A.2d 141. Following a hearing, the petition was denied, the judgment was certified for review, and the plaintiff has appealed.
The claim is that, under what is now article first, § 7, of the constitution of Connecticut, there has always been the requirement that an arrest warrant be issued only on oath or affirmation, and consequently a retroactive application of State v. Licari, 153 Conn. 127, 214 A.2d 900, is not necessary for the granting of the relief sought. in the alternative, it is claimed that, if the first proposition is unsound, the Licari case must be given retrospective effect. In either event, it is claimed that the 1960 judgment must be declared a nullity, and the plaintiff must now be released...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown, 5268
...585-86, 183 A.2d 256 (1962), rev'd on other grounds, 375 U.S. 85, 84 S.Ct. 229, 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963); see also D'Amico v. Reincke, 155 Conn. 627, 629, 236 A.2d 914 (1967) (equation of fourth amendment and article first, § 7, in context of motion to dismiss based on illegal arrest); D. Bord......
-
United States ex rel. Orsini v. Reincke
...Supreme Court of Connecticut has recently affirmed the denial of the writ in six similar cases. Reed v. Reincke, 236 A.2d 909; D'Amico v. Reincke, 236 A.2d 914; San Giovanni v. Reincke, 236 A.2d 917; Gould v. Reincke, 236 A.2d 916; Langley v. Reincke, 236 A.2d 924; Ritchie v. Reincke, 236 A......
-
State v. DiBella
...of the claimed defect in the arrest warrant is without merit. Reed v. Reincke, supra; State v. Orsini, supra; see also D'Amico v. Reincke, 155 Conn. 627, 629, 236 A.2d 914. Amaio makes an additional attack on the legality of his arrest, namely, that the arresting officer did not bring him '......
-
State v. Tropiano
... ... 431] the discussion need not now be repeated. Reed v. Reincke, 155 Conn. 591, 236 A.2d 909. 'Proof of waiver of the illegality of an arrest and consent to the jurisdiction of the person can, and indeed does, in ... ...