State v. Riley

── State v. Riley ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: May 05, 2026 Author: Suarez 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. Riley STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ACKEEM RILEY (AC 48091) Suarez, Clark and Seeley, Js. 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 Procedural History Substitute information charging the defendant with two counts each of the crimes of attempt to commit murder and assault in the first degree, and with one count each of the crimes of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford and tried to the jury before O’Keefe, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty, from which the defendant appealed to t