State v. Han

*********************************************** 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. MINH ANH HAN (AC 43016) Bright, C. J., and Alvord and Cradle, Js. Syllabus The defendant, who had been charged with the crime of 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. At a hearing on additional conditions proposed for the defendant’s participation in the accelerated rehabilita- tion program, the court concluded that the circumstances of the case were too serious based, inter alia, on the defendant’s participation in a fraternal organization and, sua sponte, terminated his participation in the accelerated rehabilitation program. Held: 1. Contrary to the state’s claim, the trial court’s ruling terminating the defendant’s participation in the accelerated rehabilitation program was a final judgment for the purposes of appeal; consistent with the ordinary meaning of the plain language of the court, this court concluded that the ruling, in which the court stated it was going to terminate the defendant’s participation in the accelerated rehabilitation program, con- stituted a termination of the defendant’s participation in the program under § 54-56e and not a reconsideration and denial of the program. 2. The trial court abused its discretion in terminating the defendant’s partici- pation in the accelerated rehabilitation program: the defendant was not afforded notice that the court intended to terminate his participation in the program, the court did not allow the defendant to be heard on the issue of termination and the defendant did not have the opportunity to present evidence regarding successful compliance with the program; moreover, the court improperly based its decision to terminate the defendant’s participation on extrajudicial information related to a frater- nal organization in which the defendant participated, the defendant was not informed of the source of the information or given any opportunity ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals