State v. Toste

Summary

The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the Appellate Court's judgment upholding the denial of the defendant's motion for sentence modification to time served under General Statutes § 53a-39(a), holding that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in considering the Board of Pardons and Paroles' prior denials of the defendant's parole and commutation applications, because the board possesses statutory expertise in assessing suitability for release and sentencing inquiries are broad as to the information and sources considered. Although the record contained no explanation of why the board denied relief, the court concluded that the bare, unchallenged fact of denial supplied the minimal indicium of reliability due process requires, that the evidentiary gap went to probative value rather than reliability, and that reversal was unnecessary because the board's denials were only one factor among several—offense seriousness, victim impact, and disciplinary history—supporting denial. Justice McDonald concurred separately, agreeing with the result but highlighting the trial court's reliance on 'skeletal evidence' and urging that future courts rely only on board denials rendered after merits hearings with written reasoned decisions, noting the defendant's commutation application was administratively screened out without a hearing.