SC20947 - State v. Mieles (“This appeal requires us to clarify the standards that apply to a trial court’s determination to impose a postsentencing standing criminal protective order pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-40e (a). The defendant, Juan Mieles, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court’s imposition of a standing criminal protective order against him more than nine years after he was sentenced. The defendant claims that the Appellate Court (1) incorrectly concluded that he did not challenge the imposition of the standing criminal protective order on the basis that the trial court had failed to abide by the standard applicable to such orders set forth in § 53a-40e (a), and (2) improperly issued the protective order in the absence of a finding of changed circumstances. We agree with the defendant that he adequately briefed his claim before the Appellate Court that the trial court had employed an incorrect legal standard in issuing the postsentencing criminal protective order. Although we disagree with his characterization that § 53a-40e (a) requires a finding of changed circumstances, we conclude that, when a standing criminal protective order is issued postsentencing, in addition to its express requirements, § 53a-40e also requires the issuing court to find that additional evidence, which had not been presented to the sentencing court, demonstrates that the issuance of the protective order would ‘best serve the interest of the victim and the public . . . .’ General Statutes § 53a-40e (a). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court and remand the case to that court with direction to vacate the trial court’s order.”)