Legal Opinion

State v. Santiago

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided September 3, 2013No. AC 34519PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

DiPENTIMA, C. J.

The defendant, Jaime Santiago, appeals following the trial court’s initial denial and later dismissal of his motion to correct illegal sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in denying his motion to correct because his convictions for assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (3) and risk of injury to a child in *376violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1997) § 53-21 (1) violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. We are not persuaded.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Alleyne v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  2. State v. MirandaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
  3. State v. TaboneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
  4. State v. CasianoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
  5. State v. GilchristConnecticut Appellate Court · 1991

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. McGeeConnecticut Appellate Court · 2017
  2. State v. HendersonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2017
  3. State v. ThompsonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2019
  4. State v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2021
  5. State v. HolleyConnecticut Appellate Court · 2020

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API