*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JERZY G.* (AC 36586) Elgo, Bright and Beach, Js. Syllabus The defendant, a Polish national who had been charged with sexual assault in the fourth degree and had been granted permission to participate in the statutory (§ 54-56e) pretrial diversionary program of accelerated rehabilitation, appealed to this court after the trial court terminated the order of accelerated rehabilitation and denied his motion to dismiss the charge against him. At the hearing on the application for the accelerated rehabilitation program, the state brought to the trial court’s attention that it had received information from United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement that the defendant had overstayed his visa. The court did not reference the defendant’s immigration status when it granted the defendant’s application for accelerated rehabilitation in April, 2012, imposed a two year period of supervision with certain condi- tions, which included mental health and substance abuse evaluation and treatment, and released the defendant from custody. The defendant was deported to Poland in August, 2012, and was prohibited from enter- ing the United States for a period of ten years from his departure date. In November, 2013, after the defendant’s deportation was brought to the trial court’s attention, it denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the sexual assault charge and terminated his participation in the accelerated rehabilitation program. Subsequently, the defendant appealed to this court, which dismissed the appeal as moot, and the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to our Supreme Court, which reversed this court’s judgment and remanded the case to this court to consider the merits of his appeal. On remand, held: 1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the defendant had not successfully completed probation and, thus, properly denied his motion to dismiss the criminal charge; a defendant who has been granted accelerated rehabilitation is entitled to a dismissal of the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals