State v. Langston
Citations
- 346 Conn. 605
Syllabus
The defendant appealed from the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant had been convicted of the crimes of criminal possession of a firearm and robbery in the first degree, but acquitted of assault in the first degree, in connection with an armed robbery and a shooting. During the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor, relying on United States v. Watts (519 U.S. 148), requested that the sentencing court find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant had committed the assault, notwithstanding his acquittal of that charge, and consider that finding for purposes of sentencing. The sentencing court reviewed the underlying facts of the defendant's convic- tion, as well as the assault charge of which the defendant was acquitted, noted that it found the evidence to be telling and the witnesses to be credible, and commented on the nature of the alleged assault and its impact on the victim. The court specifically stated that the victim ''was shot in the back of both legs by the defendant.'' The defendant received a lengthy total effective sentence, but the sentence for each count on which he was convicted fell within the statutorily prescribed range. In his motion to correct, the defendant argued that the sentencing court violated his rights under the federal and state constitutions when it considered the conduct underlying the assault charge, but the court rejected the defendant's claim and denied the motion. On appeal, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the sentencing court's consideration of the conduct underlying the assault charge of which he was acquitted violated his federal and state constitutional rights to due process and to a trial by jury. Held: 1. The sentencing court's consideration of the conduct underlying the assault charge of which the defendant was acquitted did not violate his rights to a trial by jury or due process under the sixth and fourteenth amend- ments to the United States constitution, res
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that a district court must stay its proceedings while the interlocutory appeal on arbitrability is ongoing, reasoning that “courts of appeals possess robust tools to prevent unwarranted delay and deter frivolous interlocutory appeals.”
- noting that “the courts of appeals possess robust tools to prevent unwarranted delay and deter frivolous interlocutory appeals” and “nearly every circuit has developed a process by which a district court itself may certify that an interlocutory appeal is frivolous.”
- “[A] district court must stay its proceedings 3 17 while the interlocutory appeal on arbitrability is ongoing.”
- “When a federal district court 22 denies a motion to compel arbitration, the losing party has a statutory right to an interlocutory 23 appeal.”
- “Congress provided for immediate interlocutory appeals of orders denying—but not of orders granting—motions to compel arbitration.”
- “[W]hen a district court denies a party’s motion to compel arbitration, that party may take an interlocutory appeal.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.