State v. Sanderson

── State v. Sanderson ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: June 02, 2026 Author: Elgo 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. Sanderson STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. BRANDT SANDERSON (AC 47622) Elgo, Suarez and Seeley, Js. Syllabus Convicted, following a conditional plea of nolo contendere, of risk of injury to a child, the defendant appealed. He claimed that the trial court improp- erly denied his motion to dismiss, in which he alleged that his right to due process under article first, §§ 8 and 9, of the state constitution was violated because of an approximately twenty year delay between the commission of the crime and the date of his arrest. Held: The trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss, as the defendant did not establish that the prearrest delay caused him actual and substantial prejudice, which he was required to demonstrate under State v. McFarland (353 Conn. 169) to establish a violation of his right to due process under the state constitution. This court declined the defendant’s invitation to create an exception to the rule in McFarland that would permit him to establish prejudice based on the mere passage of time between his conduct and the time of his arrest, as the court in McFarland squarely held that a defendant must establish actual and substantial prejudice when making a prearrest due process claim under the state constitution. Argued January 15—officially released June 2, 2026 Procedural History Substitute information charging the defendant with the crime of risk of injury to a child, brought to the Supe- rior Court in the judicial district of Middlesex, where the court, Hon. Julia DiCocco Dewey, judge trial referee, denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss; thereafter, the defendant was presented to the court on a conditional plea of nolo contendere; judgment of guilty, from which the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed. Chad L. Edgar, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant). Henry J. Seyue, certified legal intern, with whom were Nathan J. Buchok, assistant state’s attorney, and, on  State v. Sanderson the brief, Michael A. Gailor, state’s attorney, for the appellee (state). Opinion SUAREZ, J. The defendant, Brandt Sanderson, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a conditional plea of nolo contendere,1 of the crime of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2).2 On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his