State v. Nathaniel T.

Citations

• 230 Conn. App. 45

Syllabus

The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to modify the lifetime sex offender registration requirement of his probation. He claimed, inter alia, that the trial court improperly denied his motion to modify his probation. Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to modify a condition of his probation, as the court correctly determined that the clear and unambiguous language of the registration statute (§ 54-251 (a)) regarding mandatory registration for life for a person who is convicted of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of statute (§ 53a-70 (a) (2)) prohibited the court from granting the defendant's motion to modify. The trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to modify was proper with respect to his claim that he would not have agreed to plead guilty if he had been informed of the lifetime registration requirement, as a motion to modify was not the proper procedural vehicle to raise a claim regarding a guilty plea. This court declined to review the defendant's claims that the sentencing court improperly denied him the opportunity to present mitigating evidence and imposed an illegal and unconstitutional sentence, as his evidentiary claim was unpreserved and the defendant did not request review of his unpreserved constitutional claim pursuant to State v. Golding (213 Conn. 233), and his claim was inadequately briefed. Argued November 18—officially released December 31, 2024