Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-32
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-32
(1969, P.A. 828, S. 32; 1971, P.A. 871, S. 12; P.A. 86-403, S. 89, 132; P.A. 95-142 , S. 7 ; P.A. 98-130 ; P.A. 99-187 , S. 4 ; P.A. 08-102 , S. 7 ; P.A. 10-43 , S. 20 ; P.A. 12-114 , S. 14 ; P.A. 13-214 , S. 1 .)
Cited. 165 C. 73 . Defendant's right to counsel hereunder is of "constitutional dimension", and tests of competency are met; order of probation revocation was upheld where defendant moved from receiving state of Maine to Massachusetts without reporting to Connecticut parole authorities and was convicted of possession of drugs in Massachusetts. 167 C. 639 . Cited. 169 Conn. 223 ; 170 C. 118 . In determining issue of "unnecessary delay", principles applicable to sixth amendment "speedy trial" determinations may be considered. 192 C. 321 . Cited. 193 C. 35 ; 195 C. 461 ; 204 Conn. 52 ; 207 Conn. 152 ; Id., 565; 219 C. 629 ; 222 Conn. 299 ; 226 Conn. 191 ; 228 C. 487 . "Fair preponderance of the evidence" standard for determining whether probation has been violated; judgment of Appellate Court in 29 CA 801 , 813 reversed. 229 Conn. 285 . Cited. 235 C. 469 ; 240 Conn. 639 ; 242 C. 648 . Willfulness not an element of a probation violation; state need only establish that probationer knew of the condition and engaged in conduct that violated the condition. 256 C. 412 . If defendant has been convicted of criminal conduct, following either a guilty plea, Alford plea or jury trial, and defendant has pursued a timely appeal from such conviction and that appeal remains unresolved, a live controversy exists so that an appeal challenging a finding of violation of probation stemming from that conduct is not moot. 286 C. 353 . Trial court may not find a violation of probation unless it finds that the predicate facts underlying the violation have been established by a preponderance of the evidence at the hearing; the predicate facts proved by the state in this case are insufficient, either individually or in the aggregate, to establish a violation of Sec. 53-21(a)(1) , which in this case, served as the foundation for trial court's finding of a violation of probation. 303 C. 18 . Re defendant who admitted violating conditions of probation but contested revocation, due process rights were not violated by admission of photographs from social media Internet websites depicting defendant committing acts in violation of terms of probation because state articulated an uncontradicted basis for determining whether each image depicted defendant before or during probation and defendant failed to contest that the photographs depicted her while on probation. Id., 304. Cited. 3 Conn.App. 410 ; 6 CA 394 ; 7 CA 131 ; 9 CA 59 ; Id., 686; 11 CA 251; 12 CA 679 ; 13 CA 638 ; 15 Conn.App. 34 ; 16 Conn.App. 264 ; 18 CA 368 ; 19 Conn.App. 304 ; 20 CA 572 ; 22 CA 303 ; 23 CA 642 ; judgment reversed, see 219 Conn. 629 ; 27 Conn.App. 225 ; Id., 780. Standard of proof needed to find a violation of probation discussed. 29 Conn.App. 801 ; judgment reversed, see 229 Conn. 285 . Cited. 30 CA 346 ; 31 CA 278 ; judgment reversed, see 230 C. 385 , see also 37 CA 801 ; 32 Conn.App. 1 ; 33 CA 162 , see also 35 Conn.App. 520 ; 34 CA 1 ; Id., 46; Id., 537; 35 CA 107 . Proper standard of proof in revocation of probation proceeding is that of a fair preponderance of the evidence; previous consideration of case, 33 Conn.App. 162 , remanded for reconsideration, 229 Conn. 916 ; original judgment reversed and case remanded for new probation revocation hearing. Id., 520. Cited. 36 Conn.App. 440 ; 37 Conn.App. 72 ; 38 CA 762; 39 CA 175 ; Id., 267; Id., 722; 40 CA 395 ; 42 Conn.App. 768 ; 45 CA 566 . Reaffirmed prior holding that proper standard of proof for revocation of probation hearing proceeding is a fair preponderance of evidence and that revocation is on consideration of the whole record. 52 CA 557 . A probation revocation hearing has two distinct components. 56 CA 125 . In determining whether defendant's probationary status should be revoked court has broad discretion and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the correctness of court's ruling. 57 Conn.App. 743 . State may amend the factual basis for an alleged probation violation prior to a hearing under section. 60 Conn.App. 515 . If a specific condition of probation does not explicitly proscribe certain noncriminal conduct and cannot be reasonably interpreted to proscribe such conduct, defendant must receive actual notice that continuation of the conduct could result in a charge of violation of a condition of probation. Id., 716. Willfulness is not an element of the offense of violation of probation; court's findings that defendant violated probation were not clearly erroneous. 68 CA 367 . Trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking defendant's probation and reinstating prison sentence after defendant's urine tested positive for opiate. Id., 437. Court is vested with broad discretion in determining, on basis of the entire record, whether sentence of probation should continue or be revoked, and court may require defendant to serve the sentence imposed or impose a lesser sentence. 81 CA 710 . Trial court properly found violations of defendant's probation and did not abuse its discretion in revoking his probation. 102 CA 154. Because defendant accepted a sentence that included probation, modification of terms of probation for violation of Sec. 53-21 to include sexual offender evaluation and treatment did not violate due process as long as modified conditions reasonably related to rehabilitation and public safety. 105 CA 693. In adjudicative phase, court's finding that defendant violated condition of his probation was not clearly erroneous and, in dispositional phase, court did not abuse its discretion in revoking defendant's probation after finding that the rehabilitative purpose of probation could not be fulfilled. 112 CA 40 . When, subsequent to a judgment revoking probation, defendant was convicted of crimes for some of the conduct for which his probation was revoked, and Appellate Court had heard his appeal and Supreme Court had denied petition, his appeal re revocation of probation was moot as to those crimes, but was not moot as to conduct that was not at issue at criminal trial. Id., 147. Court's failure to make explicit findings of fact regarding the rationale underlying its decision to revoke probation does not, in and of itself, signify the absence of the dispositional phase. 116 CA 76 . A probation revocation hearing does not require all the procedural components associated with an adversarial criminal proceeding; notice to defendant satisfied the mandates of due process. 123 CA 674 . If a person is convicted of a crime, he may not claim that in a prior violation of probation hearing regarding the same course of conduct there was insufficient evidence to prove the violation. 130 CA 19. Cited. 42 Conn.Supp. 574 . Subsec. (a): A probation revocation proceeding is not a criminal proceeding and is not subject to the statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions, and the state may reinstitute a violation of probation charge at any time after dismissal without prejudice by the court provided defendant's period of probation has not expired. 301 C. 630 . Cited. 10 CA 395 ; 25 CA 421 ; judgment reversed, see 222 Conn. 299 . Trial court reasonably could have found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant violated his probation by engaging in breach of the peace and criminal mischief and thus violated criminal laws of the state. 57 CA 64. State satisfied notice requirements when it recited the charges constituting defendant's violation of probation during both defendant's arraignment and probation revocation hearing. 80 CA 75 . Subsec. (b): Cited. 178 C. 145 ; 225 Conn. 46 . Court's discretion to provide right of allocution to defendant during probation revocation proceeding is identical to discretion provided at time of original sentencing. 243 C. 339 . When defendant has raised a claim that trial court abused its discretion in rendering its judgment during dispositional phase, practical relief is available even when there is no live controversy as to whether defendant committed the underlying offense and, therefore, the claim is not moot. 286 C. 367. Cited. 1 CA 70 ; 10 Conn.App. 395 ; 31 CA 660 . Trial court has broad discretion in continuing or revoking sentence of probation. 50 CA 46 . Provides that once a probation violation is established, court may extend period of probation if original period with any extension does not exceed periods authorized by Sec. 53a-29 . 72 CA 33 . Subsec. requires that violation of probation be "established by the introduction of reliable and probative evidence"; this requirement is not satisfied when, as in this case, the substance that defendant possessed was readily available for laboratory analysis to determine whether it in fact contained cocaine, a narcotic, but was never subjected to such testing. 81 CA 409 . Subsec. (c): 120 day limitation establishes a directory rule, rather than a mandatory rule, and such time period is a goal, guideline and advisory. 178 CA 715 .
See Sec. 54-108c re availability on Internet of information on outstanding arrest warrants for probation violations.