State v. Denya, 149 Conn. App. 714

Defendant, Denya, pleaded guilty in 1998 to multiple counts of risk of injury to a child and sexual assault in the fourth degree for molesting his autistic niece; he was sentenced to 10 years with execution suspended after 3 years, followed by 10 years of probation with lifetime sex-offender registration and no contact with minors.
In 2004, the trial court found probation violations and reopened the sentence, reimposing the original 10-year term but increasing total probation to 35 years and adding electronic monitoring at the defendant’s expense.
On October 26, 2010, Denya moved to modify probation under General Statutes § 53a-30(c); after a hearing, the court denied modification and highlighted past deception and probation violations.
The court noted that the defendant’s violation had gone undetected until a private investigator uncovered contact with children, and commented that even a capable probation officer failed to detect the violations.
Denya appealed, challenging (a) the length of his probation and (b) the electronic monitoring; the issue centered on whether the court abused its discretion in denying modification and in maintaining monitoring.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there good cause to modify probation?	Denya argues rehabilitation warrants modification.	State contends discretion not abused given deceit and risk.	No abuse; court acted within discretion.
Should electronic monitoring be removed?	Denya argues monitoring should end given time and changes.	State asserts monitoring remains appropriate due to deception.	No error; monitoring upheld.

State v. Denya, 294 Conn. 516 (Conn. 2010) (probation modification standards and electronic monitoring issues discussed)
State v. Preston, 286 Conn. 367 (Conn. 2008) (discretionary standard for probation modification)