Legal Opinion
State v. Constantopolous
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided April 2, 2002No. AC 20815PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
2Per curiam
The pro se defendant, Michael Constantopolous, appeals from the order of the trial court denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant claims that (1) his sentence was illegal and (2) his sentence was imposed in an illegal manner because the court improperly advised him during his plea canvass that he would be eligible for parole.1 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In February, 1989, the defendant was involved in a dispute that resulted in the shooting deaths of two victims. The defendant was arrested, charged by the state with two counts of murder in…
3Cases cited6 opinions
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Cobham v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- State v. McNellisConnecticut Appellate Court · 1988
- State v. CatorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- State v. WallConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by14 opinions
- State v. MungrooConnecticut Appellate Court · 2007
- State v. OrtizConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
- State v. PaganConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
- State v. BarksdaleConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
- State v. PerezConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.