State v. Browne

── State v. Browne ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: May 05, 2026 Author: Seeley Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of 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 Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the 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 an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  State v. Browne STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. BRYANT BROWNE (AC 47770) Seeley, Wilson and Harper, Js. Syllabus The defendant, who had previously been convicted of various crimes in con- nection with his involvement in engaging police in a high speed pursuit, which resulted in the death of one police officer, appealed from the trial court’s judgments denying his motions for sentence modification. The defendant claimed that the court abused its discretion in finding that he had failed to establish good cause to modify his sentences. Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in how it weighed the various fac- tors it considered in denying the defendant’s motions for sentence modifica- tion, specifically, evidence of the defendant’s rehabilitation, sobriety, and familial relationships, and victim impact testimony and statements, as the court’s weighing of those factors was consistent with the broad discretion afforded to it in ruling on such a motion, and the court reasonably found that the defendant did not establish good cause in light of other factors, including the seriousness of his crimes, his extensive criminal history, his behavior while incarcerated, and the impact of the defendant’s crimes on the victims, law enforcement personnel and the deceased officer’s widow and children. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the defendant’s postconviction efforts to challenge his conviction through appeals and habeas corpus proceedings in its analysis of the evidence of the defendant’s remorse, as it was within the court’s discretion to weigh the information before it and to determine whether it deemed any remorse expressed by the defendant to be genuine, and the court’s denial of the defendant’s motions was a denial of leniency, not a punishment. The trial court did not overlook mitigating evidence consisting of letters of support from the defendant’s family and friends in favor of undue empha- sis on static factors, such as the seriousness of the defendant’s underlying offenses and criminal history, as the court reasonably considered all of the information before it and determined that the letters were outweighed by the gravity of the defendant’s conduct and its continuing effect on the victims, as well as the defendant’s extensive criminal history. Argued January 6—officially released May 5, 2026 Procedural History Substitute information, in the first case, charging the defendant with the crime