State v. Jerzy G., 183 Conn. App. 757

Defendant, a Polish national, entered the U.S. on a B-2 visa in 2006 and was charged in January 2012 with sexual assault in the fourth degree.
Defendant applied for and the trial court granted accelerated rehabilitation in April 2012, imposing two years of supervised conditions (no contact, mental‑health and substance‑abuse evaluation/treatment, employment) and continued the case to April 2014.
Between May and August 2012 ICE detained and deported the defendant to Poland for overstaying his visa; DHS barred him from reentering the U.S. for ten years.
In November 2013 the court learned of the deportation, advanced the probation‑status review, and (after hearings) found the defendant had not successfully completed the program, denied his motion to dismiss, and terminated his participation in accelerated rehabilitation.
The Appellate Court initially dismissed the appeal as moot; the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed and remanded for consideration on the merits. On remand the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of dismissal and termination of probation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Jerzy)	Held
Whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss based on successful completion of accelerated rehabilitation	The record contains no evidence defendant satisfied probation conditions; dismissal requires judicial finding of successful completion	Deportation was not willful and prevented completion; absence from U.S. should not preclude dismissal	Court held denial proper: dismissal requires proof of successful completion and record lacked evidence of compliance or evaluations
Whether termination of accelerated rehabilitation/probation was an abuse of discretion	Termination was reasonable because deportation made compliance impossible and there was no evidence defendant was completing conditions abroad	Termination was improper; defendant argued inability to comply was not his fault and sought continuance/investigation	Court held termination not an abuse: issue not clearly preserved below and, in any event, termination was reasonable given lack of evidence of compliance and potential inability to complete conditions

State v. Aquino, 279 Conn. 293, 901 A.2d 1194 (2006) (addressed mootness and collateral immigration consequences)
State v. McElveen, 261 Conn. 198, 802 A.2d 74 (2002) (articulated traditional collateral‑consequences mootness standard)
Housing Authority v. Lamothe, 225 Conn. 757, 627 A.2d 367 (1993) (related collateral‑consequences precedent)
State v. Kevalis, 313 Conn. 590, 99 A.3d 196 (2014) (distinguishing pretrial accelerated rehabilitation from postconviction probation)
State v. Fanning, 98 Conn. App. 111, 908 A.2d 573 (2006) (explaining unsuccessful completion bars dismissal under § 54-56e)
State v. Callahan, 108 Conn. App. 605, 949 A.2d 513 (2008) (standard of review for termination of accelerated rehabilitation)