Case ID: a3d_155-2/html/0822-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Connecticut v. Junior JUMPP
    AC 38452
    Appellate Court of Connecticut.
    Argued January 4, 2017 Officially released February 14, 2017
    Robert T. Rimmer, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).
    Melissa Patterson, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, and Carl R. Ajello III, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
    DiPentima, C. J., and Prescott and Lavery, Js.
   PER CURIAM.

Opinion 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.