Reyes v. State
| Docket Number | AC 45529 |
| Decision Date | 28 November 2023 |
| Parties | ANGELO REYES v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
1
ANGELO REYES
v.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
No. AC 45529
Court of Appeals of Connecticut
November 28, 2023
Argued September 13, 2023
Procedural History
Petition for a new trial following the petitioner's conviction of the crimes of arson in the second degree, conspiracy to commit criminal mischief in the first degree and conspiracy to commit burglary in the first degree, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven and tried to the court, Alander, J.; judgment denying the petition; thereafter, the court granted the petitioner's request for leave to file a late petition for certification to appeal and denied the petition for certification to appeal, and the petitioner appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.
Norman A. Pattis, with whom, on the brief, were Kevin Smith and Zachary E. Reiland, for the appellant (petitioner).
Jonathan M. Sousa, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John P. Doyle, Jr., state's attorney, and Craig P. Nowak, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
Alvord, Prescott and Bishop, Js.
OPINION
BISHOP, J.
The petitioner, Angelo Reyes, appeals following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the trial court's judgment denying his petition for a new trial. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the trial court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal, (2) improperly determined that his newly discovered third-party culpability evidence would probably not produce a different result in a new trial, and (3) improperly determined that the state did not suppress his newly discovered impeachment evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). We disagree and, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
Our Supreme Court's decision in the petitioner's direct appeal sets forth the following relevant facts, which the jury in his criminal trial reasonably could have found.
"At the time of the events in question, the [petitioner] owned a Laundromat and several investment properties in the Fair Haven section of the city of New Haven. In October, 2008, the [petitioner] paid two employees, Osvaldo Segui, Sr., and Osvaldo Segui, Jr., to set fire to 95 Downing Street in New Haven, a single-family residence that the [petitioner] had sold to Robert Lopez [Lopez] and his mother, Carmen Lopez, in 2002. The [petitioner] was angry that [Lopez] would not sell the property back to him and informed Segui, Sr., that, after the fire, he intended to purchase the lot of land on which the residence had stood before the fire. Segui, Sr., and Segui, Jr., both of whom lived rent free in one of the [petitioner's] properties, agreed to set the fire, and, in the early morning hours of October 9, 2008, they did so.
"In May, 2009, the [petitioner] enlisted Segui, Sr., and Segui, Jr., to set another fire, this time to a vehicle belonging to Madeline Vargas, a local businesswoman and employee of a nonprofit substance abuse services agency operating in Fair Haven. Although the [petitioner] did not tell Segui, Sr., why he had had him set fire to Vargas' car, the evidence adduced at trial indicated that the [petitioner] was motivated by spite- the result of an ongoing dispute between him and Vargas over Vargas' attempts, in 2008, to run an outreach program for local drug addicts in an empty parking lot near the [petitioner's] Laundromat.
"The [petitioner], Segui, Sr., and Segui, Jr., were subsequently charged with various offenses related to the 2008 and 2009 arsons. Prior to being tried in state court, the [petitioner] was tried in federal court on unrelated arson charges. Segui, Sr., and Segui, Jr., also were charged in that federal case but agreed to testify against the [petitioner] in exchange for reduced sentences. In the present case, Segui, Sr., and Segui, Jr., entered into
plea agreements pursuant to which, in exchange for their testimony, they received . . . sentence [s] that did not require them to serve any more time than they were required to serve in connection with the federal case." State v. Reyes, 325 Conn. 815, 818-19, 160 A.3d 323 (2017).
Following a jury trial, the petitioner was convicted of two counts of arson in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-112 (a) (2), two counts of conspiracy to commit criminal mischief in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-115 (a) (1), and one count of conspiracy to commit burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-101 (a) (1). On January 8, 2015, the court sentenced the petitioner to a total effective term of twenty-five years of incarceration, execution suspended after fifteen years, followed by five years of probation. Our Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of conviction on direct appeal. Id., 833.
On June 23, 2017, the petitioner filed the present petition for a new trial on two grounds.[1] First, he claimed that he discovered new third-party culpability evidence that demonstrated that another individual, Saul Valentin, ordered Segui, Sr., and Segui, Jr., to set fire to 95 Downing Street and Vargas' vehicle, a green BMW. Second, he claimed that the state failed to disclose the existence of a search warrant that was executed at 95 Downing Street months before the fire pursuant to which the police allegedly seized a cache of weapons, which evidence could have been used to impeach Lopez at trial.
More specifically, the petitioner alleged that, in June, 2015, his counsel received an unsolicited letter from an individual residing in Puerto Rico, detailing the involvement of the author's cousin, Valentin, in the fires for which the petitioner was convicted. The petitioner alleged that the letter, as well as subsequent inquiry by his private investigator, revealed that Valentin had ordered Segui, Sr., and Segui, Jr., to set fire to two automobiles belonging to Yeis Kol Leon for Leon's failure to take responsibility for narcotics seized by police at the home of Valentin's mother. The petitioner additionally alleged that Valentin repeatedly admitted this misconduct to his acquaintances and to his fellow inmate while he was in federal prison in New Jersey in September, 2015. The petitioner also alleged that Valentin did not want to return to New Haven to face questioning about crimes that Segui, Sr., and Segui, Jr., had committed for him and that Valentin was worried that Segui, Sr., would testify against him for ordering the burning of the cars belonging to Leon and his mother.
Furthermore, the petitioner alleged that, months before the fire at 95 Downing Street, state and federal law enforcement executed a search warrant and seized a cache of weapons from 95 Downing Street. He alleged
that the search warrant would have materially affected the credibility of Lopez, who would have had to explain to the jury why guns were seized from one of his properties. The petitioner claimed that all of this evidence was not discoverable or available at the time of the original trial and, additionally, that the state concealed the search warrant from the defense.[2] In response to the petition, the respondent, the state of Connecticut, denied all of the substantive allegations and left the petitioner to his proof.
The court held a hearing on the petition over the course of four days in October, 2019. The petitioner called several witnesses to testify, including his former attorneys, Frank Antollino and John Williams; Leon and James Saldana, who both worked with Valentin selling narcotics in the Fair Haven area; then Senior Assistant State's Attorney John P. Doyle, Jr.; Adriene Sosa, an acquaintance of the petitioner; and Nulberto Sullivan, who was incarcerated in federal prison with Valentin. The respondent called multiple witnesses to testify, including Caroline Fargeorge, the deputy chief clerk at geographical area court number 23 in New Haven; former New Haven police Officer Michael Mastropetre; former police Detective Michael Hunter; and Kevin P. Grenier, an inspector for the Division of Criminal Justice. The parties introduced numerous exhibits into evidence, which generally consisted of letters, photographs of Leon's "burned car" and the individuals involved, past trial transcripts, and several reports.
On October 15, 2019, the court issued a memorandum of decision denying the petition for a new trial. The court began its analysis by stating that "[t]he consideration of a petition for a new trial is governed by the standard set forth in Asherman v. State, 202 Conn. 429, [521 A.2d 578] (1987)." As for the third-party culpability evidence, the court reasoned that "the sum total of the testimony of the petitioner's . . . witnesses is that, on one occasion in 2007 or 2008, Valentin and Segui, Sr., were involved in the burning [of] a white truck in New Haven, and Valentin may have been involved in the arson of [other cars in the same area]. No evidence was submitted that connected Valentin, directly or indirectly, to the burning of the property at 95 Downing Street or the green BMW owned by Vargas. . . .
"In order to offer evidence pointing to a third party's culpability, the defendant must establish a direct connection between the third party and the charged offense, rather than merely raising a bare suspicion that another could have committed the crime. State v. Arroyo, 284 Conn. 597, 610, [935 A.2d 975] (2007). The fact[s] that Valentin, during the relevant time period, burned a separate motor vehicle with the assistance of Segui, Sr., and may have burned a second motor vehicle fail to connect him in any way to the arson of Vargas' vehicle or Lopez' property. The petitioner presented no
evidence that Valentin knew Vargas or Lopez, had any motive to burn their property or was present at the scene of the fires. The evidence offered by the petitioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial