State v. Elson
Decision Date | 07 December 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 31511. |
Citation | 9 A.3d 731,125 Conn. App. 328 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Zachary Jay ELSON. |
Hubert J. Santos, with whom were Benjamin B. Adams, and, on the brief, Hope C. Seeley, Hartford, for the appellant (defendant).
Timothy J. Sugrue, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Stephen J. Sedensky III, state's attorney, and Warren C. Murray, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
DiPENTIMA, C.J., and BISHOP, GRUENDEL, HARPER, LAVINE, BEACH, ROBINSON, ALVORD and DUPONT, Js.
The defendant, Zachary Jay Elson, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a)(1) and unlawful restraint in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-95 (a).1 Also, as alleged ina part B information, the trial court found the defendant guilty of committing an offense while on pretrial release in violation of General Statutes § 53a-40b (1). On December 10, 2008, the defendant's direct appeal was argued before a panel of three members of this court, which, with one judge concurring in part and another judge concurring in part and dissenting in part, affirmed the judgment of conviction. State v. Elson, 116 Conn.App. 196, 975 A.2d 678 (2009). Thereafter, this court granted the defendant's motion for reargument and reconsideration en banc.2 In that motion, the defendant challenged this court's rejection of one of the several claims raised in the appeal, specifically, that this court should vacate the sentence imposed by the trial court and remand the case for resentencing because the trial court had considered improper factors at the time of sentencing. Following reargument and reconsideration of that claim, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The facts underlying the judgment of conviction, as they reasonably could have been found by the jury, were set forth in State v. Elson, supra, 116 Conn.App. at 196, 975 A.2d 678. "On September 3, 2004, the female victim was astudent enrolled at Western Connecticut State University. During the late afternoon, the victim was working on a project in an empty classroom at the university's Danbury campus. The defendant, who was not a student enrolled at the university, entered the classroom, pretending to search for a lost cellular telephone. The defendant spoke with the victim about the telephone; the victim told him that she had not seen it and suggested that he speak with campus police or the maintenance staff. The defendant lingered in the classroom, inquired about the victim's project and asked if he could stay and watch her work. Also, the defendant asked the victim if she was dating anyone. The victim replied that she preferred to work alone and that she was happily married. The defendant stated that he was embarrassed and left the classroom.
Id., at 199-202, 975 A.2d 678.
With regard to the claim under reconsideration, the defendant argues that the court deprived him of his right to due process when it considered improper factors at the time of sentencing.3 Specifically, the defendant asserts that the court, in imposing sentence, improperly was affected by (1) the fact that he proceeded to trial rather than accept a plea bargain extended by the state and (2) a full exhibit, namely,a knife that the state offered in evidence during the trial.4
The defendant's claim is based upon specific statements that the court made during the sentencing proceeding on June 8, 2006; the statements, and their context, are set forth in the discussion that follows. At the commencement of the proceeding, the prosecutor addressed the court, ultimately recommending a total effective sentence of thirty-five years incarceration, suspended after twenty-five years, followed by five years probation with special conditions. Thereafter, the victim read an impact statement she had written. The defendant's attorney addressed the court, suggesting that the court consider factors that supported a lenient sentence. The court listened to statements made by a family friend of the defendant as well as the defendant's father. The defendant exercised his right of allocution, expressing remorse for the criminal conduct underlying his convictions. He stated in relevant part:
Thereafter, the court stated that it would "make some introductory remarks before [proceeding] to formal sentencing." At that time, the court indicated that it had considered a letter submitted to the court from the defendant's mother and the statement of the defendant's father. The court then stated:
The court discussed the victim's "credible" trial testimony, noting that "[t]here is no reason in my mind to doubt her testimony that the defendant came at her from behind with a knife to her throat." The court stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Cameron M.
...makes an ''affirmative request'' for Golding review of his unpreserved constitutional claim. But see State v. Elson, 125 Conn. App. 328, 353-54, 9 A.3d 731 (2010) (en banc) (''interpreting the affirmative request requirement associated with Golding [to] eschew the notion that it necessarily......
-
State v. Medrano
...922, 998 A.2d 168 (2010); State v. Elson, 116 Conn. App. 196, 221-22, 975 A.2d 678 (2009), superseded on other grounds, 125 Conn. App. 328, 9 A.3d 731 (2010) (en banc), cert. granted, 300 Conn. 904, 12 A.3d 572 (2011); State v. Smith, 65 Conn. App. 126, 143-44, 782 A.2d 175 (2001), rev'd on......
-
In re Shane M.
...the claim is of constitutional magnitude, alleging the deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right.” State v. Elson, 125 Conn.App. 328, 354, 9 A.3d 731 (2010) (en banc), cert. granted on other grounds, 300 Conn. 904, 12 A.3d 572 (2011). The respondent does not meet his burden under th......
-
State v. Carrion
...as in having a guilty person convicted” [internal quotation marks omitted] ), superseded in part en banc on other grounds, 125 Conn.App. 328, 9 A.3d 731 (2010), rev'd on other grounds, 311 Conn. 726, 91 A.3d 862 (2014), State v. McCarthy, 105 Conn.App. 596, 621, 624–25, 625–26 n. 7, 939 A.2......