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.
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.
Billings, deputy assistant public defender, with whom was
James B. Streeto, senior assistant public defender, for the
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
Mullins and Solomon, Js. SOLOMON, J. In this opinion the
other judges concurred.
Conn.App. 157] SOLOMON, J.
General Statutes § 54-56e establishes a pretrial
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. 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, 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
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.
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 ...