144 Conn. App. 232
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- 1999 conviction for sexual assault in the first degree; sentence: 12 years with 27 months to serve, followed by 10 years probation; probation included an explicit prohibition on being in the presence of minors or contacting minors without approval.
- Defendant admitted probation violations on three occasions prior to June 2011; a fourth violation arose in June 2011 for being seen with a minor.
- July 28, 2011 probation-revocation hearing: defendant admitted violation after a court canvass detailing rights and waivers; the court informed him his admission waived the rights to a hearing, confrontation, counsel, and self-incrimination protections.
- August 2011 dispositional hearing: defendant sentenced to 66 months, suspended after 20 months, plus five years probation; defendant appeals challenging voluntariness of the plea, the probation condition, and prosecutor’s statements.
- Court affirms judgment, rejecting each claimed error; notes some claims are not reviewable or not preserved for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| voluntariness of plea and waiver of hearing | Tierinni argues plea and waiver were involuntary under Golding. | Tierinni contends rights were not properly explained and he did not knowingly waive rights. | Golding not satisfied; no constitutional violation proved. |
| propriety of probation condition restricting contact with minors | Tierinni asserts condition is vague, overbroad, and unconstitutional. | Tierinni claims improper restriction and ineffective assistance arguments for not preserving the issue. | Not reviewable on appeal; preserved briefing inadequate; claim abandoned. |
| prosecutorial/ witness-like conduct at dispositional hearing | State implies prosecutor engaged in improper witness-like conduct. | Defense contends prosecutor testimony influenced sentencing improperly. | Not improper; sentencing source considerations allowed; no substantial reliance evidence. |
| effectiveness of trial counsel as to preservation/appeal | Ineffective assistance warrants reversal or different forum for review. | Evidentiary hearing required; direct appeal not appropriate. | Declined for lack of collateral review context; not reviewable on direct appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Altajir, 303 Conn. 304 (Conn. 2012) (sentencing information may come from varied, not strictly admissible sources; due process flexibility at sentencing)
- State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (Conn. 1986) (prosecutorial impropriety standards differ at sentencing versus trial)
- State v. Bourguignon, 82 Conn. App. 798 (Conn. App. 2004) (ineffective-assistance claims generally not resolved on direct appeal; prefer collateral review)
- State v. Johnston, 17 Conn. App. 226 (Conn. App. 1988) (when defendant waives a hearing and admits violation, due process concerns are addressed on record)
- State v. Ortiz, 83 Conn. App. 142 (Conn. App. 2004) (fundamental right argument for family integrity not stated; distinguishing case law on vagueness)