Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. McGee

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided August 15, 2017No. AC38771Published

1DissentBishop, J.

*579Finding that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the motion to correct an illegal sentence filed by the defendant, Frank McGee, my colleagues in the majority analyze the defendant's claim on the merits and, finding none, reverse the court's dismissal and remand the case to the trial court with direction to deny the motion. Unlike my colleagues, I do not believe that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear this motion, as I view it as no more than a collateral attack on the defendant's conviction.1 Therefore, I would affirm the *503dismissal of the motion, albeit not for the reasons stated…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Ex Parte LangeSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
  4. Alabama v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. Rutledge v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996

38 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