Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Faraday

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided April 30, 2002No. AC 20667Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSchaller, J.

I agree with part I of the majority decision. I respectfully disagree, however, with part II, in which the majority concludes that (1) there is a fundamental inconsistency between an Alford1 plea and a probation condition that requires an admission of guilt, and (2) that “the defendant did not have prior fair warning . . . that his denials ... [of a problem] could dissipate his purpose in pleading under the Alford doctrine [and] could result . . . [in] a revocation of probation,” thereby denying him his right to due process. I believe that (1) there is no inconsistency, and (2) the court was…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. State v. PalmerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
  3. State Ex Rel. Warren v. SchwarzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1998
  4. People v. BirdsongSupreme Court of Colorado · 1998
  5. State v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000

7 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