State v. Angel M.
Decision Date | 31 December 2020 |
Docket Number | SC 20106 |
Citation | 255 A.3d 801,337 Conn. 655 |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. ANGEL M. |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Pamela S. Nagy, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Timothy J. Sugrue, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, former state's attorney, and Anne F. Mahoney, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Robinson, C. J., and Palmer, McDonald, D'Auria, Kahn and Ecker, Js.**
Following a jury trial, the defendant, Angel M., was convicted of sexually assaulting the twelve year old daughter of his romantic partner and sentenced to a total effective prison term of thirty-three years. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming, among other things, that the trial court had violated his right to due process at sentencing by penalizing him for refusing to apologize for his criminal misconduct. See State v. Angel M ., 180 Conn. App. 250, 253, 286, 183 A.3d 636 (2018). According to the defendant, who maintained his innocence both at trial and at the time of sentencing, the trial court's enhancement of his sentence for that reason was fundamentally unfair because it contravened his constitutional right against self-incrimination insofar as any such apology necessarily would have required him to admit guilt. See id., at 286–88, 183 A.3d 636. The Appellate Court rejected the defendant's claim, concluding that the record did not support his contention that the trial court had increased his sentence because of his unwillingness to issue an apology to the victims; see id., at 290–91, 183 A.3d 636 ; and we granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal. See State v. Angel M ., 328 Conn. 931, 182 A.3d 1192 (2018). We agree with the Appellate Court and, accordingly, affirm its judgment.
The Appellate Court opinion sets forth the following relevant facts and procedural history. "M is the mother of the victim. M became romantically involved with the defendant when the victim was approximately three or four years old. M had two children, G and the victim, from a previous relationship. The defendant was a father figure to the victim, and she was considered his stepdaughter.
The case involving A, however, was administratively closed in May, 2013."3 (Footnotes in original.) State v. Angel M ., supra, 180 Conn. App. at 253–55, 183 A.3d 636.
"The state charged the defendant with one count of sexual assault in the first degree [in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2) ], one count of attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree [in violation of § 53a-70 (a) (2) and General Statutes § 53a-49 ], and one count of risk of injury to a child [in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2) ]." Id., at 256, 183 A.3d 636. At trial, the defendant testified in his own defense that he had never touched the victim or A in a sexually inappropriate manner. His Id.
" ‘[The Defendant]: No. That's it for now.’ " (Emphasis in original.) Id., at 286–88, 183 A.3d 636.
Id., at 288, 183 A.3d 636. The court also recognized "the dilemma of the appeal[s] process" as it related to the defendant's willingness to accept responsibility for his crimes but noted that, "in this type of case, it is most helpful to the victims to have an admission or an apology." The court also stated that it is "particularly important for them to be restored to [a] calm, collected, healthy mental state."
Notably, the court expressed concern that the defendant was then living with another woman and her teenaged daughter. The court then observed that "the defendant has violated the trust in a household" and was "a predator," and that, "although [the defendant] was not charged with ... crimes against his [biological] daughter [A], she did testify [as to his sexual abuse of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Alvarez
...and uncharged conduct was identical, victims were same age, and defendant was "parental figure" to both victims), aff'd, 337 Conn. 655, 255 A.3d 801 (2020) ; State v. Daniel W. , supra, 180 Conn. App. at 85–86, 182 A.3d 665 (uncharged misconduct evidence was admissible where assaults occurr......
-
State v. Sinchak
...court may consider in fashioning an appropriate sentence." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Angel M. , 337 Conn. 655, 669, 255 A.3d 801 (2020). Nevertheless, "the trial court's discretion in regard to sentencing is not unfettered. ... [A] [sentencing] court ge......
-
State v. Alvarez
... ... age, and victims were both nieces of defendant); State ... v. Gupta , supra, 297 Conn. 229 (considering ... frequency and severity of defendant's assaults on ... different victims in determining admissibility of uncharged ... misconduct evidence); State v. Angel M. , ... 180 Conn.App. 250, 261-62, 183 A.3d 636 (2018) (uncharged ... misconduct evidence was admissible where assaults occurred in ... same location, charged and uncharged conduct was identical, ... victims were same age, and defendant was "parental ... figure" to ... ...