Legal Opinion
State v. Bruno
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided November 15, 2011No. AC 32737PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GRUENDEL, J.
The defendant, Martyn D. Bruno, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion for a new trial filed pursuant to Practice Book §§ 42-53 and 42-54. He claims that the court improperly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of that motion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The facts underlying the defendant’s criminal conviction are set forth at length in State v. Bruno, 236 Conn. 514, 673 A.2d 1117 (1996). As the sentence review division stated in a subsequent proceeding, “[t]he crime was clearly one of the most vicious, cruel…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Simms v. WardenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Cobham v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- State v. BrunoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- State v. ReidSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. McCoyConnecticut Appellate Court · 2017
- Turner v. StateConnecticut Appellate Court · 2017
- State v. BrunoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2012
- State v. PalenciaConnecticut Appellate Court · 2016