State v. Reyes

************************************************
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 postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially 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 Connecti-
cut 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 Jour-
nal 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.
************************************************
Page 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

2 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
State v. Reyes

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ANGELO REYES
(AC 46750)
Suarez, Clark and Lavine, Js.

Syllabus

The defendant, who had been convicted of various crimes in connection
with two incidents of arson, and sentenced to a total effective term of
twenty-five years of incarceration, execution suspended after fifteen years,
and five years of probation, appealed from the trial court’s denial of his
motion 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 sentence. Held:

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the defendant
failed to establish good cause to warrant a sentence modification, the court
having conducted an appropriate review of the information before it when
it determined that the devastation and harm resulting from the seriousness
of the defendant’s conduct and the fact that he had only served less than
one third of his sentence outweighed his rehabilitative efforts.

Argued September 4—officially released November 12, 2024

Procedural History

Substitute information in one case charging the
defendant with the crimes of arson in the second degree
and conspiracy to commit criminal mischief in the first
degree, and substitute information in a second case
charging the defendant with the crimes of arson in the
second degree, conspiracy to commit criminal mischief
in the first degree, and conspiracy to commit burglary
in the first degree, brought to the Superior Court in the
judicial district of New Haven, where the cases were
consolidated and tried to the jury before Blue, J.; ver-
dicts and judgments of guilty; thereafter, the court, Har-
mon, J., denied the defendant’s motion for sentence
modification, and the defendant appealed to this court.
Affirmed.
Naomi T. Fetterman, assigned counsel, for the appel-
lant (defendant).
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 1

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 3
State v. Reyes

Jonathan M. Sousa, assistant state’s attorney, with
whom, on the brief, were John P. Doyle, state’s attorney,
Craig P. Nowak, supervisory assistant state’s attorney,
and Lisa D’Angelo, executive assistant state’s attorney,
for the appellee (state).
Opinion

LAVINE, J. The defendant, Angelo Reyes, appeals
from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion
for a sentence modification filed pursuant to General
Statutes § 53a-39. On appeal, the defendant claims that
the court abused its discretion in finding that he had
failed to establish good cause to modify his total effec-
tive sentence. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
The relevant facts concerning the defendant’s under-
lying convictions, as stated by our Supreme Court in
State v. Reyes, 325 Conn. 815, 160 A.3d 323 (2017), can
be summarized as follows. In the first case, in October,
2008, the defendant, who owned a laundromat and sev-
eral properties in the Fair Haven section of New Haven,
paid two of his employees, Osvaldo Segui, Sr., and
Osvaldo Segui, Jr. (Seguis), to set fire to a single-family
residence on Downing Street in New Haven. Id., 818.
The defendant was angry that one of the owners of the
Downing Street property refused to sell the property
back to him and, after the fire, he intended to purchase
the lot of land on which the residence had stood. Id.
The Seguis, who lived rent free in one of the defendant’s
properties, agreed to set the fire, and, in the early morn-
ing hours of October 9, 2008, they did so. Id. In a second
case, in May, 2009, the defendant enlisted the Seguis
to set another fire, this time to a vehicle belonging to
Madeline Vargas, a local businesswoman and employee
of a nonprofit substance abuse services agency
operating in Fair Haven. Id., 818–19. The defendant had
an ongoing dispute with Vargas concerning her attempts
Page 2 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

4 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
State v. Reyes

to run an outreach program for locals addicted to drugs
in an empty parking lot near the defendant’s laundro-
mat. Id., 819.
On October 9, 2014, following a jury trial on the con-
solidated cases, the defendant was convicted of two
counts of arson in the second degree in violation of
General Statutes § 53a-112 (a) (2), two counts of con-
spiracy to commit criminal mischief in the first degree
in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-115 (a) (1) and
53a-48 (a), and one count of conspiracy to commit bur-
glary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes
§§ 53a-101 (a) (1) and 53a-48 (a). On January 8, 2015,
the court, Blue, J., imposed a total effective sentence
of twenty-five years of incarceration, execution sus-
pended after fifteen years, followed by five years of
probation. The defendant appealed the judgments of
conviction to this court, the appeal was transferred to
our Supreme Court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-
199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1, and the judgments of
conviction were affirmed. Id., 833.
On March 15, 2022, the defendant filed a motion for
sentence modification, seeking to reduce his fifteen
year sentence to four and one-half years of incarcera-
tion followed by five years of probation. In the memo-
randum in support of his motion, the defendant argued
that good cause existed to modify his sentence due to
newly discovered evidence of his innocence,1 his lack of
1
The defendant filed two petitions for a new trial based on purportedly
newly discovered evidence of innocence. The appeal from the denial of the
first such petition was dismissed. See Reyes v. State, 222 Conn. App. 510,
521, 306 A.3d 5 (2023) (dismissing appeal from denial of 2017 petition for
new trial that raised issue of newly discovered evidence of innocence on
ground that court did not abuse its discretion in denying petition for certifica-
tion to appeal), cert. denied, 348 Conn. 944, 307 A.3d 910 (2024). The judg-
ment on the second such petition was reversed in part on appeal and
remanded for a new evidentiary hearing. See Reyes v. State, 222 Conn. App.
538, 560, 306 A.3d 515 (2023) (affirming in part dismissal of 2020 petition
for new trial alleging newly discovered evidence of innocence and reversing
in part on statute of limitations grounds and remanding for new evidentiary
hearing). The defendant also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 3

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 5
State v. Reyes

disciplinary issues during incarceration, his worsening
medical health due to incarceration and COVID-19, his
participation in rehabilitative programing, and his ties
to the community. Following a hearing, the court, Har-
mon, J., denied the motion in an April 8, 2022 memoran-
dum of decision. The defendant filed a motion for recon-
sideration in which he argued that the court, in denying
his motion for a sentence modification, ‘‘might have
overlooked’’ the newly discovered evidence of his inno-
cence that he submitted in connection with his motion
for sentence modification. The court denied the motion.
This appeal followed.
The following standards, statutory language, and
legal principles are relevant. Section 53a-39 (a) provides
in relevant part that ‘‘the sentencing court or judge may,
after hearing and for good cause shown, reduce the
sentence, order the defendant discharged, or order the
defendant discharged on probation or conditional dis-
charge for a period not to exceed that to which the
defendant could have been originally sentenced.’’
‘‘[I]n arriving at its sentencing determination, the sen-
tencing court may appropriately conduct an inquiry
broad in scope, largely unlimited either as to the kind
of information [it] may consider or the source from
which it may come. . . . [T]his broad discretion
applies with equal force to a sentencing court’s decision
regarding a sentence modification . . . . Accordingly,
we review a court’s judgment granting or denying a
motion to modify a sentence for abuse of discretion.
. . . An abuse of discretion exists when a court could
have chosen different alternatives but has decided the
matter so arbitrarily as to vitiate logic, or has decided
that included claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in relation to
evidence allegedly demonstrating innocence, which was denied by the
habeas court. See Reyes v. Commissioner of Correction, Superior Court,
judicial district of Tolland, Docket No. TSR-CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S (August 24,
2023).
Page 4 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

6 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
State v. Reyes

it based on improper or irrelevant factors. . . . As
such, [i]n determining whether there has been an abuse
of discretion, every reasonable presumption should be
given in favor of the correctness of the court’s ruling.
. . . Generally speaking, under this deferential stan-
dard, [w]here the trial court has properly considered
all of the offenses proved and imposed a sentence
within the applicable statutory limitations, there is no
abuse of discretion.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit-
ted.) State v. Brelsford, 227 Conn. App. 53, 61, 319 A.3d
763 (2024).
The defendant claims that the court abused its discre-
tion in finding that he failed to establish good cause to
modify his sentence.2 Specifically, he contends that the
court abused its discretion because, in addition to pre-
senting evidence that he is actually innocent, ‘‘the fact
that he has not incurred a single disciplinary ticket
while serving this sentence, has engaged in rehabilita-
tive programs, has maintained employment, and has a
strong support network in the community . . . consti-
tutes good cause for the modification of [his] sentence.’’
We disagree.
The court stated in its memorandum of decision that
it had ‘‘thoroughly reviewed the materials’’ submitted
in support of the defendant’s motion, including evi-
dence of his good behavior while incarcerated, his men-
toring of other inmates, his being a model prisoner with
zero disciplinary reports, his health and the effect that
COVID-19 had on his incarceration, and statements
2
The defendant also argues that, ‘‘to the extent that the court faulted [him]
for presenting evidence in support of his innocence during the modification
proceeding, such evidence is appropriately placed before the court for con-
sideration.’’ Even assuming, arguendo, that claims of innocence are an appro-
priate factor for courts to consider in sentence modification proceedings,
the court allowed the defendant to present such evidence and to make
arguments in support of his innocence claim in this case and, nevertheless,
concluded that the defendant failed to establish good cause.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 5

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 7
State v. Reyes

from community members in support of sentence modi-
fication. The court noted that, in determining whether
the defendant demonstrated good cause, it ‘‘considered
whether the defendant has demonstrated substantial
rehabilitation since the date the crime was committed.
Factors that have been examined include, but are not
limited to: (1) the gravity of his crime; (2) correctional
record and length of time incarcerated; (3) his age and
circumstances at the time of the commission of the
crime; (4) whether he has demonstrated remorse and
increased maturity since the date of the offense; (5)
whether he has contributed to the welfare of other
persons through service while incarcerated; and (6)
the degree in which he has fully availed himself of
opportunities for growth, rehabilitation, and contribu-
tion within the correctional system considering the
nature and circumstances of the crime he committed.’’

The defendant acknowledges that the court’s use of
these factors was ‘‘well reasoned,’’ but contests the
court’s weighing of the factors. In weighing the factors,
the court stated that ‘‘[t]he gravity of the crime commit-
ted by the defendant, arson, in the court’s view must be
a consideration in evaluating the ‘good cause’ equation.
Given the gravity of the crime, a commensurable level
of rationale is at a minimum the starting point for a
finding of ‘good cause’ to be warranted.

‘‘The court should not and cannot ignore the devasta-
tion and harm resulting from this act of arson which
could have resulted in the loss of a human life and
required the assistance of thirty to forty firefighters
who valiantly put their lives at risk. The court acknowl-
edges the pain and devastation felt by the victim of the
car fire. The crime of arson endangers lives and terrifies
people. Property and more importantly people’s lives
were endangered by these actions.
Page 6 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

8 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
State v. Reyes

‘‘Therefore, after a review and consideration of the
information and material presented, and with contem-
plation of the proper standard, the court finds the defen-
dant has not established ‘good cause’ to modify the
sentence imposed by the trial court. The circumstances
presented by the defendant do not establish ‘good
cause’, to wit: ‘a legally sufficient reason,’ to modify
the sentence when balanced against the facts and harm
created by the serious crime he committed. The defen-
dant has served less than one third of his sentence at
the time of this application which the court feels is
not even close to sufficient based on the harm and
devastation that resulted from his actions that seemed
centered in greed and monetary gain.’’
The court conducted an appropriate review of the
information before it when it determined that the ‘‘dev-
astation and harm’’ resulting from the seriousness of
the defendant’s conduct and the fact that he had only
served less than one third of his sentence outweighed
his rehabilitative efforts. The court’s weighing of factors
is consistent with the broad discretion afforded to it in
ruling on a motion for sentence modification. See, e.g.,
State v. Martin G., 222 Conn. App. 395, 406, 305 A.3d 324
(2023) (court did not abuse its discretion in determining
that defendant failed to establish good cause to warrant
sentence modification where gravity of defendant’s con-
duct and its continuing effect on victim and her family
outweighed defendant’s rehabilitative efforts), cert.
denied, 348 Conn. 944, 308 A.3d 34 (2024); see also State
v. Brelsford, supra, 227 Conn. App. 63–64 (rejecting
defendant’s claim that court should have relied more
heavily on rehabilitative efforts and holding that court
did not abuse its discretion in determining that defen-
dant failed to establish good cause to warrant sentence
modification where defendant’s rehabilitative efforts
did not outweigh factors weighing against sentence
modification). For the foregoing reasons, we conclude
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 7

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 9
State v. Reyes

that the court did not abuse its discretion in determining
that the defendant failed to establish good cause to
warrant a sentence modification.
The judgment denying the motion for sentence modi-
fication is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.