AC38452 - State v. Jumpp ("The defendant, Junior Jumpp, appeals from the denial of his motion for sentence modification made pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-39. The defendant has completed the sentence that was the subject of his motion. This court cannot grant the defendant any practical relief, and therefore his appeal is moot. State v. Bradley, 137 Conn. App. 585, 587 n.1, 49 A.3d 297, cert. denied, 307 Conn. 939, 56 A.3d 950 (2012); see also State v. Boyle, 287 Conn. 478, 485–86, 949 A.2d 460 (2008); State v. Scott, 83 Conn. App. 724, 726–27, 851 A.2d 353 (2004). We also summarily reject the defendant's claim that this case falls within the capable of repetition yet evading review exception to the mootness doctrine. See Loisel v. Rowe, 233 Conn. 370, 382–83, 660 A.2d 323 (1995).
"The appeal is dismissed.")
AC37635 - State v. Roberto Q. ("Following a jury trial, the defendant, Roberto Q., was found guilty of one count of sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-71 (a) (1), one count of sexual assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-72a (a) (2), one count of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a (a) (1) (B), and one count of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). The defendant's niece, S.A. (victim), was between the ages of twelve and fourteen years old at the time of the assaults. The court rendered judgment in accordance with the jury verdict and sentenced the defendant to a total effective sentence of twenty years incarceration, suspended after ten years, followed by fifteen years of probation.
"On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly instructed the jury on the use of constancy of accusation evidence, and that the court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial after the state inadvertently elicited testimony concerning uncharged prior misconduct by the defendant. The state responds that the court properly instructed the jury on the use of constancy evidence, and that the court issued a curative instruction regarding the uncharged prior misconduct testimony, thereby avoiding the need for a mistrial. We conclude that the court's jury instruction was proper, and that the court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for mistrial. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")