Legal Opinion
State v. Ocasio
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided May 30, 2000No. SC 16049PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
2Per curiam
The issues on this certified appeal are: (1) “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that literal, rather than substantial, compliance is required in order for a defendant’s plea of guilty to be valid under *376Practice Book § 39-20?”; and (2) “If the answer to the first question is no, was there substantial compliance with Practice Book § 39-20 [in this case]?” State v. Ocasio, 247 Conn. 947, 723 A.2d 322 (1998). We answer the first question in the negative and the second question in the affirmative. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The facts of this case as…
3Cases cited6 opinions
- State v. BadgettSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- State v. GodekSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- State v. DomianSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- State v. SuggsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- State v. OcasioConnecticut Appellate Court · 1998
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by11 opinions
- State v. IralaConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- State v. MalcolmSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- State v. NelsonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- State v. HansonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
- Meadowbrook Center, Inc. v. BuchmanConnecticut Appellate Court · 2016
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.