175 Conn. App. 599
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Defendant Chandra Bozelko convicted after jury trial of multiple felonies and misdemeanors (identity theft, credit‑card fraud, larceny, forgery) arising from four incidents; sentenced December 7, 2007 to an effective 10 years, execution suspended after 5, plus probation.
- Defendant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, alleging the presentence investigation report (PSI) used at sentencing contained material misrepresentations — specifically that she refused to cooperate with the PSI interview — and that the sentencing court relied on that misinformation, violating due process.
- On remand from this Court, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing (multiple days in 2015–2016) and received testimony from the probation officer (Lisa Gerald), defense counsel (D’Amato), and a mitigation specialist (Roberts). Probation officer conceded she prepared a partial PSI without the defendant’s input because sentencing was not continued; she denied thinking defendant was engaging in delay tactics.
- Defense counsel presented mitigating facts at sentencing (no prior criminal record, nonviolent offenses, full restitution, mental health history, education, caregiver role); defendant declined to speak at sentencing and did not identify PSI inaccuracies on the record.
- Trial court (Arnold, J.) found defendant failed to prove the sentencing judge actually relied on inaccurate or misleading PSI information and denied the motion. Appellate court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bozelko) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing was imposed in an illegal manner because the PSI contained materially inaccurate information | PSI inaccuracies must be proven to have been relied on; state argues defendant did not prove actual reliance or materiality | Probation officer misrepresented that defendant refused to cooperate with the PSI; that misrepresentation was material and the court must have relied on it | Denied — defendant failed to prove the misinformation was material or that the sentencing court gave it specific weight or relied on it |
| Whether the sentencing court precluded defendant from presenting mitigation by refusing to consider PSI cooperation dispute | State: court allowed mitigation and counsel presented mitigating facts; defendant had opportunity to speak | Bozelko: court’s remark about not entertaining arguments on PSI cooperation effectively prevented mitigation, prejudicing her | Denied — record shows counsel and defendant had opportunity; mitigating factors were presented and defendant declined to speak further |
| Whether defendant was prevented from proving what PSI portions the sentencing court relied on because Judge Cronan could not be subpoenaed | State: defendant failed to seek articulation to clarify what court relied on; burden on defendant to prove reliance | Bozelko: inability to subpoena sentencing judge made it impossible to prove reliance at evidentiary hearing | Denied — defendant did not file motion for articulation; burden remained on defendant to show reliance |
| Standard for reversal of motion to correct illegal sentence | State: trial court’s factual findings after hearing entitled to deference; require abuse of discretion to overturn | Bozelko: contends trial court erred in denying motion despite evidence of PSI misstatement | Affirmed — review for abuse of discretion; trial court’s conclusion that defendant failed to meet burden was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Parker, 295 Conn. 825 (2010) (due process bars sentencing on materially untrue or unreliable information)
- State v. Charles F., 133 Conn. App. 698 (2012) (defendant must show misinformation was materially inaccurate and that judge actually relied on it; actual reliance requires explicit attention or specific consideration)
- State v. Koslik, 116 Conn. App. 693 (2009) (defendant’s failure to file motion for articulation can hinder proof of what the sentencing court relied on)
- State v. Bozelko, 154 Conn. App. 750 (2015) (prior appellate remand limited to whether sentencing court relied on misleading or inaccurate PSI information)