he had a fifth amendment right to a grand jury, we note that the United States Supreme Court has determined that this requirement applies only to federal prosecutions and is not applicable to the states. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 534-35, 4 S. Ct. 111, 28 L. Ed. 232 (1884). Our Supreme Court has also recognized this principle. State v. Couture, 194 Conn. 530, 548-49, 482 A.2d 300 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1192, 105 S. Ct. 967, 83 L. Ed. 2d 971 (1985). We have carefully examined the balance of the defendant’s claims on appeal, and we find that they have no merit. The judgment is affirmed. 1 This motion and appeal were filed by the defendant pro se. After the filing of his appellate brief, our Supreme Court decided State v. Casiano, 282 Conn. 614, 922 A.2d 1065 (2007) (<HOLDING>). At the defendant’s request, the trial court
holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial holding a criminal defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel during a plea process holding that a defendant has a constitutional right to counsel as a matter of right on direct appeal holding defendant has right to appointment of counsel to determine if motion to correct illegal sentence has sound basis holding that if plea bargain has been offered defendant has right to effective assistance of counsel in considering whether to accept it