Legal Opinion

State v. Morrison

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided October 31, 1995No. 13566PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Connell, J.

The defendant appeals from the refusal of the trial court to consider the merits of his motion for sentence reduction. The sole issue is whether the doctrine of separation of powers mandates that a Practice Book rule prevail over a conflicting statute. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Prior to 1982, General Statutes § 53a-39 and Practice Book § 934 both provided that a sentencing court had the discretion to reduce any definite sentence. Effective June 8, 1982, the legislature amended § 53a-39 to limit the sentencing court’s power to reduce only definite *633sentences of “three years or…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Gore v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  2. Simms v. WardenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
  3. Adams v. RubinowSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
  4. State v. CareySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
  5. State v. DardenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1976

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. BrunoConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011
  2. State v. McCleeseSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2019
  3. State v. MorrisonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
  4. State v. SalamonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
  5. State v. SalamonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008

1 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