State v. P, SC160420 Order on Motion

Background

Defendant Hiral Patel was released pretrial on bond; after a jury found him guilty of murder and other offenses the trial court increased his bond and then, at the state's request, revoked bail citing General Statutes § 54-63f.
Patel petitioned for appellate review arguing article first, § 8 of the Connecticut Constitution guarantees a right to bail through sentencing, so § 54-63f’s bar on release for certain homicide convictions is unconstitutional.
The state argued threshold jurisdictional defects: (1) § 54-63g/Practice Book § 78a-1 apply only to the "accused" (preconviction), and (2) the appeal became moot because sentencing occurred while the petition was pending.
The Supreme Court concluded it had jurisdiction: "accused" in the statute/rule includes postconviction defendants, and the case fit the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" mootness exception.
On the merits, the court conducted a textual, historical, and comparative analysis of the 1965 constitutional amendment that removed the phrase "before conviction," and concluded the amendment did not extend the constitutional right to bail beyond conviction (finding of guilt accepted by the court).
Result: petition for review granted but relief denied — article first, § 8 right to bail is extinguished upon conviction; § 54-63f’s bar on postconviction release for certain homicides was not held unconstitutional in this decision.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Appellate Court have jurisdiction under § 54-63g/Practice Book § 78a-1 to review postconviction bail orders?	State: "accused" means only preconviction, so statute/rule don't apply postconviction.	Patel: "accused" can mean any criminal defendant; statute/rule permit review of postconviction bail orders.	Held: "accused" interpreted broadly; statute and rule authorize review of postconviction bail orders.
Is the petition moot because sentencing occurred while appeal pending?	State: Sentencing intervened, so no practical relief; petition moot.	Patel: Issue fits "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception; appellate review appropriate.	Held: Not moot; exception applies given short conviction-to-sentencing interval and public importance.
Does article first, § 8 of the Connecticut Constitution guarantee a right to bail through sentencing (postconviction)?	Patel: 1965 amendment removed "before conviction," expanding bail right to the presentence period.	State: Historical meaning and presumption of innocence tie bail to preconviction; amendment not intended to expand scope.	Held: Right to bail extinguished upon conviction (finding of guilt accepted by the court); 1965 amendment did not expand the temporal scope.
Is § 54-63f (which bars release for certain homicide convictions pending sentence) unconstitutional under article first, § 8?	Patel: If constitution guarantees bail through sentencing, § 54-63f is unconstitutional as to him.	State: Statute valid; legislature can restrict postconviction release for serious crimes.	Held: Relief denied; court did not invalidate § 54-63f on the asserted constitutional ground.

Key Cases Cited

State v. McCahill, 261 Conn. 492 (2002) (reviewed postconviction release under § 54-63g and discussed separation of powers limits)
State v. Ayala, 222 Conn. 331 (1992) (discussed historical scope of constitutional bail right and sentencing context)
State v. Menillo, 159 Conn. 264 (1970) (addressed preconviction bail and contrasted postconviction bail as statutory)
Betterman v. Montana, 136 S. Ct. 1609 (2016) (U.S. Supreme Court on the segments of criminal prosecution and the reach of certain rights into sentencing)
State v. Vaughan, 71 Conn. 457 (1899) (discussed distinction between conviction and sentence and common-law power to grant bail after conviction)
Ex parte Voll, 41 Cal. 29 (1871) (early authority linking bail to presumption of innocence and limiting bail postconviction)