Case Name: STATE of Connecticut v. Junior JUMPP
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 2017-02-14
Citations: 155 A.3d 822
Docket Number: AC 38452
Parties: STATE of Connecticut
v.
Junior JUMPP
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 155
Pages: 822–823

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.