Skip to main content

State v. Mieles

Citations

  • 351 Conn. 765

Syllabus

The defendant, who previously had been convicted of risk of injury to a child, appealed, on the granting of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court had upheld the trial court's decision to grant the state's motion for a standing criminal protective order prohib- iting, inter alia, the defendant's contact with the victim. The trial court had issued this order approximately nine years after the defendant was sentenced in connection with his risk of injury conviction. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the trial court had improperly issued the protective order without a finding of changed circumstances. Held: The trial court having failed to apply, in issuing the protective order in question, the proper legal standard under the statute (§ 53a-40e) governing standing criminal protective orders, this court concluded that the Appellate Court had improperly upheld the trial court's decision to issue the protective order, reversed the Appellate Court's judgment, and remanded the case with direction to vacate the order. 766 APRIL, 2025 351 Conn. 765 State v. Mieles Contrary to the Appellate Court's conclusion, the defendant adequately briefed his claim before the Appellate Court that additional requirements, beyond those expressly set forth in § 53a-40e, apply to a trial court's determi- nation of whether it should issue a standing criminal protective order after a defendant has been sentenced for the underlying offense. A review of the text of § 53a-40e and its legislative history led this court to conclude that, before a court determines whether to exercise its discretion to issue a standing criminal protective order postsentencing, it must make certain predicate findings, namely, that the defendant had been convicted of a qualifying offense set forth in § 53a-40e (a) (1) or (2), that the history and character and nature and circumstances of the defendant's criminal conduct indicate that a standing criminal protective order will be

Judges: Mullins; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Dannehy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.