State v. TARASCO, 22 A.3d 530

Tarasco was convicted by jury of murder under § 53a-54a after trial in Waterbury.
Defendant claimed self-defense and testified, including about his drug dealing during direct examination.
The trial court sentenced Tarasco to 50 years and stated it considered his drug dealing history as an aggravating factor.
Tarasco's sentencing relied on presentence investigation report and information corroborated by witnesses.
The defense argued the court impermissibly punished him for testifying; the state argued the issue was unpreserved, proper, and harmless.
Court concluded the trial court could rely on independent sources (PSI and corroboration) and did not penalize Tarasco for testifying.]
The majority affirmed the judgment; a concurring judge separately addressed constitutional aspects of sentencing informed by trial testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentencing relied on testifying about drug dealing violated Tarasco’s right to testify	Tarasco’s testimony about drug dealing was used to punish him.	Using testimony to impose harsher sentence burdened the right to testify.	No constitutional violation; reliance on PSI and corroborating evidence supported the sentence.
Whether Golding review is available for an unpreserved sentencing claim	Record adequate; claim constitutional in magnitude.	Claim preserved only for Golding review if appropriate.	Claim reviewable under Golding; analysis proceeds to merits.
Whether the court properly relied on the presentence report in sentencing	PSI provided reliable basis for aggravating factor.	Misuse of defendant’s trial testimony to penalize him.	Court properly relied on PSI (and corroboration) for sentencing.
Whether any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Any error in considering testimony was not prejudicial.	Error affected substantial rights.	Any error was harmless in light of independent corroboration and PSI reliance.

State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (establishes review for constitutional claims not preserved at trial (Golding test))
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1987) (right to testify sources and limits in constitutional context)
Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (U.S. 1980) (defendant may be penalized for testifying; weighing pros/cons permissible)
United States v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1978) (sentencing may consider testimony and demeanor of the accused)
Portuondo v. Agard, 529 U.S. 61 (U.S. 2000) (trial testimony may be used in sentencing decisions)
State v. Coleman, 14 Conn.App. 657 (Conn. App. 1988) (appellate caution on sentencing-related inferences from testimony (distinguishable))
State v. Thomas, 296 Conn. 375 (Conn. 2010) (PSI plays significant role in fair sentencing)
State v. Peay, 96 Conn.App. 421 (Conn. App. 2006) (PSI use during sentencing)
State v. Patterson, 236 Conn. 561 (Conn. 1996) (presentence information informs punishment within statutory limits)
State v. Eric M., 271 Conn. 641 (Conn. 2004) (broad sentencing discretion; information may be relied upon)