Legal Opinion
State v. Mollo
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided May 22, 2001No. AC 19324PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
FOTI, J.
The defendant, Arthur Mollo III, appeals from the order of the trial court dismissing his motion to correct an illegal sentence, which he filed pursuant to Practice Book § 43-22. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
As a result of a plea bargain, the defendant, on August 31,1990, entered pleas of guilty to burglary in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-102 and disorderly conduct in violation of General Statutes § 53a-182. The court,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Simms v. WardenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Summerville v. Warden, State PrisonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Kohlfuss v. Warden of Connecticut State PrisonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1962
- State v. DanielsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- State v. McNellisConnecticut Appellate Court · 1988
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Cobham v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- State v. LawrenceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- State v. TaboneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
- State v. KoslikConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
- State v. PaganConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.