State v. Koslik
Connecticut Appellate Court
1ConcurrenceAlvord, J.
I agree with the majority opinion because it appears to be the result required by our Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Lawrence, 281 Conn. 147, 913 A.2d 428 (2007). In Lawrence, our Supreme Court stated that “for the trial court to have jurisdiction to consider the defendant’s claim of an illegal sentence, the claim must fall into one of the categories of claims that, under the common law, the court *707has jurisdiction to review.” (Emphasis added.) Id., 155. I write separately, however, because I believe that the common law does not extend jurisdiction to situations implicated by the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- State v. DanielsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- State v. McNellisConnecticut Appellate Court · 1988
- State v. LawrenceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- State v. CatorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- State v. TaboneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.