State v. Robert S., 179 Conn. App. 831

Defendant Robert S. was subject to a protective order (issued Oct. 22, 2014) prohibiting contact with the protected person, including telephone contact with her home; access to the children was to be facilitated through a named third-party relative and communications through OurFamilyWizard.
On Jan. 5, 2015 a call to the grandmother’s landline (where the victim and children were living) showed the defendant’s cell number on caller ID; the victim did not answer and called police.
Bloomfield police confirmed the number was associated with the defendant and applied for an arrest warrant; defendant was tried and convicted by a jury of criminal violation of a protective order (acquitted of separate harassment charge).
At sentencing the victim submitted a victim impact letter alleging additional misconduct; the defendant disputed some statements and sought to present mitigating material; the court imposed 5 years (execution suspended after 3) and issued a standing criminal protective order.
On appeal defendant challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence to prove he intentionally placed the call in violation of the order and (2) denial of due process at sentencing by reliance on allegedly unreliable information and by restricting his mitigation evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict under §53a-223	State: caller ID, victim identification, officer confirmation and lack of evidence someone else used phone support inference defendant made call and intended contact	Robert: no proof he personally made call or intended to contact victim; could have been inadvertent or by another	Affirmed: jury could reasonably infer defendant placed call and had general intent to contact protected home; circumstantial evidence sufficient
Due process at sentencing (use of allegedly unreliable info & denial to contest)	State: court considered victim statement, PSI, defendant allocution and legitimate sentencing factors	Robert: court relied on materially false/unreliable victim statements and prevented him from presenting mitigating evidence, violating due process	Affirmed: no constitutional violation — court did not substantially rely on challenged statements, had sufficient reliable bases (PSI, defendant’s own statements, trial record), and properly exercised discretion in limiting irrelevant evidence

State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69 (Conn. 2006) (standards for sufficiency review and inferences on intent)
State v. Larsen, 117 Conn. App. 202 (Conn. App. 2009) (general intent requirement for protective-order violations)
State v. Stanley, 161 Conn. App. 10 (Conn. App. 2015) (circumstantial evidence may support inferences of guilt)
State v. Collette, 199 Conn. 308 (Conn. 1986) (sentencing: information outside record requires minimal indicium of reliability and substantial reliance to merit reversal)
State v. Eric M., 271 Conn. 641 (Conn. 2004) (broad scope of sentencing inquiry but due process limits on unreliable information)
State v. Anderson, 212 Conn. 31 (Conn. 1989) (sentencing review: appellate deference where reliable bases exist)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (standard for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (Conn. 2015) (modification of Golding’s third-prong phrasing)