TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Cover Page
2. Table of Authorities
3. Statement of the Issues
4. Statement of the Case
5. Statement of Facts
6. Standard of Review
7. Argument
8. Conclusion
9. Certificate of Compliance
10. Certificate of Service

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

APPELLANT'S BRIEF

Attorney for Appellant:

[________________________________]
Juris No. [________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________], Connecticut [________________________________]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Statutes

Rules

I. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

1. Whether the trial court erred in [________________________________].

2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for [________________________________].

3. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by [________________________________].

4. [________________________________]

II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On or about [__/__/____], an ☐ information / ☐ indictment was filed in the Superior Court, Judicial District of [________________________________], charging Appellant with:

[Summarize significant pretrial proceedings, motions, and rulings.]

[________________________________]

On [__/__/____], the case proceeded to ☐ jury trial / ☐ bench trial / ☐ the defendant entered a plea of ☐ guilty / ☐ nolo contendere.

On [__/__/____], the jury returned a verdict of:

[________________________________]

On [__/__/____], the trial court sentenced Appellant to:

[________________________________]

(T. [____]; R. [____].)

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. State's Case

[________________________________]

(T. [____].)

B. Defense Case

[________________________________]

(T. [____].)

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Issue 1: [________________________________]

☐ Plenary review applies to questions of law, including statutory interpretation and constitutional questions. (State v. Elson, 311 Conn. 726 (2014).)

☐ Abuse of discretion applies to the trial court's discretionary rulings, including evidentiary matters and sentencing. (State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207 (2007).)

☐ Sufficiency of the evidence — the reviewing court construes the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and determines whether the trier of fact could have reasonably concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233 (1983).)

☐ Golding review — an unpreserved constitutional claim will be reviewed if (1) the record is adequate, (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude, (3) the violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial, and (4) the claim was not waived. (State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (2015).)

Issue 2: [________________________________]

V. ARGUMENT

A. [ISSUE ONE HEADING]

[________________________________]

1. Relevant Proceedings Below

[________________________________]

(T. [____]; R. [____].)

2. Applicable Legal Principles

[________________________________]

3. Analysis

[________________________________]

4. Prejudice

☐ Under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), the constitutional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because [________________________________].

☐ Under State v. Sawyer, 279 Conn. 331 (2006), the evidentiary error was harmful because it is more probable than not that the erroneous action affected the result.

B. [ISSUE TWO HEADING]

[________________________________]

1. Relevant Proceedings Below

[________________________________]

(T. [____]; R. [____].)

2. Applicable Legal Principles

[________________________________]

3. Analysis

[________________________________]

4. Prejudice

[________________________________]

C. [ADDITIONAL ISSUES AS NEEDED]

[________________________________]

VI. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Appellant respectfully requests that this Court:

☐ Reverse the judgment of conviction.
☐ Reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial.
☐ Vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
☐ Modify the judgment as follows: [________________________________].
☐ [________________________________]

Respectfully submitted,

Date: [__/__/____]

_________________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
Attorney for Appellant

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 67-3, I certify that this brief contains [________________________________] words / [________________________________] pages, as counted by [________________________________] word-processing program. This brief does not exceed the 18,000-word / 35-page limit.

Date: [__/__/____]

_________________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, [________________________________], hereby certify that on [__/__/____], I served the foregoing Appellant's Brief on the following parties by the method indicated:

☐ U.S. Mail, first-class, postage prepaid
☐ Electronic filing
☐ Hand delivery

_________________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]

STATE-SPECIFIC NOTES FOR CONNECTICUT

1. Notice of Appeal Deadline: Must be filed within 20 days after the date sentence is imposed or, if a motion to correct an illegal sentence is filed, within 20 days of the decision on that motion (Practice Book § 63-1(a)).

2. Word/Page Limit: Brief may not exceed 35 pages or 18,000 words (Practice Book § 67-3).

3. Appellant's Brief Due: Within 45 days after the delivery date of the transcript ordered by the appellant.

4. Appellee's Brief Due: Within 30 days after filing of the appellant's brief.

5. Reply Brief Due: Within 20 days after filing of the appellee's brief.

6. Preliminary Statement of Issues: Must be filed within 10 days of filing the appeal (Practice Book § 63-4).

7. Golding Review: Unpreserved constitutional claims may be reviewed under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989), if the four-prong test is satisfied.

8. Anders Brief: When appointed counsel finds no meritorious issues, counsel must comply with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

9. Death Penalty Appeals: Death penalty cases are appealed directly to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

10. Preservation: Connecticut generally requires a timely objection to preserve an issue. Conn. Practice Book § 60-5 provides for review of unpreserved claims only in limited circumstances.