State v. Riley

Syllabus

The defendant, who previously had been convicted of murder and attempt to commit murder, among other crimes, appealed from the trial court's judg- ment denying his motion for sentence modification pursuant to statute (§ 53a-39). The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly failed to consider a reduction in sentence other than that requested by him in his motion for modification. Held: The trial court did not erroneously refuse to consider a sentence reduction other than that requested in the defendant's motion for sentence modifica- tion, as nothing in the record suggested that the court failed to consider whether a more moderate sentence reduction was warranted, and the court's memorandum of decision indicated that the court was convinced that the sen- tence in place remained appropriate in light of all of the evidence presented. The defendant's claim that the trial court required an admission of guilt as a predicate to granting his motion for sentence modification was not sup- ported by the record, as the record indicated that the court did not conclude that the defendant could not establish good cause solely because he refused to accept responsibility for his crimes but, rather, determined that, even if the defendant had been fully rehabilitated, the principles of deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, and vindication of the interests of the victims all weighed in favor of denying the motion for modification. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that there was no good cause to modify the defendant's sentence, as the court properly reviewed all of the relevant information before it, including the evidence presented by the defendant in connection with his motion and the factors considered by the sentencing judge, and reasonably determined that the defendant failed to establish good cause to modify his sentence. Argued February 2—officially released May 5, 2026