Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Jerzy G.

Appellate Court of Connecticut

December 29, 2015

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
JERZY G. [*]

         Argued September 17, 2015.

          Information charging the defendant with the crime of sexual assault in the fourth degree, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield, where the court, Iannotti, J., granted the defendant's application for accelerated rehabilitation; thereafter, the court, Arnold, J., denied the defendant's motion to dismiss and terminated the order of accelerated rehabilitation, and the defendant appealed to this court.

          SYLLABUS

         The defendant, a Polish national who had been charged with sexual assault in the fourth degree, applied for and was granted permission to participate in the statutory (§ 54-56e) accelerated rehabilitation program. At the hearing in which the court granted the defendant permission to participate in the program, the state informed the court that it had learned from the United States Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency that the defendant had overstayed his visa. Thereafter, the Office of Adult Probation notified the court that the defendant had been deported to Poland, and defense counsel represented to the court that she did not know the reason for the deportation. The trial court subsequently denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the sexual assault charge, terminated his participation in the accelerated rehabilitation program, and ordered him rearrested. The court ruled that the defendant had failed to complete the program successfully because his compliance with the court's orders in granting him admission to the program could not be monitored in Poland. Subsequently, the defendant appealed to this court. Held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating the defendant's participation in the accelerated rehabilitation program: the defendant failed to demonstrate that he was deported solely on the basis of the termination of his participation in the accelerated rehabilitation program, and because he was deported at least in part for reasons independent of that termination, this court was unable to afford him any practical relief and his appeal was dismissed as moot; moreover, the defendant's claim that his appeal was not moot under the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine was conjectural, as he failed to produce any evidence that absent termination of his participation in the accelerated rehabilitation program, he would be allowed to reenter or visit, or become a naturalized citizen of, the United States.

         Kelly Billings, deputy assistant public defender, with whom was James B. Streeto, senior assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

         Michele C. Lukban, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John C. Smriga, state's attorney, Marc R. Durso, assistant state's attorney, and Tiffany M. Lockshier, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

         Gruendel, Mullins and Solomon, Js. SOLOMON, J. In this opinion the other judges concurred.

          OPINION

Page 304

          [162 Conn.App. 157] SOLOMON, J.

          General Statutes § 54-56e[1] establishes a pretrial diversionary program

Page 305

known as accelerated [162 Conn.App. 158] rehabilitation that permits a trial court, in its discretion, to suspend criminal prosecution for certain offenses against a defendant, subject to such conditions as the court shall order. State v. Callahan, 108 Conn.App. 605, 607, 949 A.2d 513, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 916, 957 A.2d 879 (2008). The defendant, Jerzy G., applied for and was granted admission into the state's accelerated rehabilitation program in connection with the charge of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a.[2] Subsequently, the defendant was deported to Poland, and the trial court terminated his participation in the program. The defendant appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating his participation in the program,[3] claiming that the court abused its discretion by (1) denying his motion to dismiss, and (2) refusing to continue the case until he could return to the state and complete the program. We dismiss the appeal as moot.

         The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. In January, 2010, the defendant, a [162 Conn.App. 159] Polish national, resided at the home of the victim. The victim previously was married to a friend of the defendant, and the victim had no romantic involvement with the defendant. On January 10, 2010, the defendant allegedly approached the victim while she was standing in the kitchen and touched her on her buttocks and breasts. The victim called the police, and the defendant was arrested and charged with one count of sexual assault in the fourth degree.

         In March, 2012, the defendant filed an application for accelerated pretrial rehabilitation. A hearing was held on this application on April 20, 2012. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court, Iannotti, J., granted the defendant's application and imposed a period of probation of two years with the following conditions: (1) the defendant was not to contact the victim; (2) the defendant was to undergo mental health evaluation and treatment as deemed necessary; (3) the defendant was to undergo substance abuse evaluation and treatment, specific for alcohol abuse, as deemed necessary; and (4) the defendant was to seek and maintain full-time employment. The prosecutor informed the court at the hearing that she had been in contact with representatives of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, who told her that the defendant had overstayed his ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.