State v. Ramos

Decision Date13 September 1995
Citation665 A.2d 905,235 Conn. 902
PartiesSTATE of Connecticut v. Reinaldo RAMOS.
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court

Kent Drager, Assistant Public Defender, in support of the petition.

Linda N. Howe, Assistant State's Attorney, in opposition.

The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 36 Conn.App. 831, 661 A.2d 606 (AC 12487), is denied.

BERDON, Associate Justice, dissenting.

I would grant the defendant's petition for certification for review.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. Yoon Chul Shin, AC 40385
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • October 1, 2019
    ...837, 661 A.2d 606, 610 (declining to review evidentiary claim where defendant's objection premature and never renewed), cert. denied, 235 Conn. 902, 665 A.2d 905 (1995). As previously discussed, the court made clear to the parties that it was not going to make any ruling in advance of 219 A......
  • State v. Jones
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • May 1, 1997
    ...from reviewing the issues further." (Citations omitted.) State v. Ramos, 36 Conn.App. 831, 838-39, 661 A.2d 606, cert. denied, 235 Conn. 902, 665 A.2d 905 (1995). We will, however, review the defendant's third claim under Golding. See State v. Williams, 220 Conn. 385, 396-97, 599 A.2d 1053 ......
  • State v. Lockhart
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • September 26, 2000
    ...prevail under the third or fourth prongs of Golding. See State v. Ramos, 36 Conn. App. 831, 836, 661 A.2d 606, cert. denied, 235 Conn. 902, 665 A.2d 905 (1995) (declining to review underlying claim for relief where request for Golding relief not adequately briefed); State v. Cain, 25 Conn. ......
  • Lundborg v. Lawler
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • May 15, 2001
    ...we need go no further.6 See Practice Book § 61-10; State v. Ramos, 36 Conn. App. 831, 839, 661 A.2d 606, cert. denied, 235 Conn. 902, 665 A.2d 905 (1995). The plaintiff further argues that the probate proceedings are not essentially identical to the judicial proceedings because he now claim......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT