Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-32a
If a defendant who entered a plea of nolo contendere or a guilty plea under the Alford doctrine to a violation of subdivision (2) of section 53-21 of the general statutes in effect prior to October 1, 2000, section 53a-70b of the general statutes, revision of 1958, revised to January 1, 2019, or subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of section 53-21 or section 53a-70, 53a-70a, 53a-71, 53a-72a or 53a-72b, and was ordered to undergo sexual offender treatment as a condition of probation, becomes ineligible for such treatment because of such defendant's refusal to acknowledge that such defendant committed the act or acts charged, such defendant shall be deemed to be in violation of the conditions of such defendant's probation and be returned to court for proceedings in accordance with section 53a-32.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-32a
( P.A. 97-151, S. 2; P.A. 01-84, S. 16, 26.)
Trial court not required to notify defendant, upon entering guilty plea under Alford doctrine, that failure to acknowledge his guilt could result in violation of condition of his probation requiring sex offender treatment. 268 Conn. 174. Defendant had been afforded a full hearing on his violation of probation charge as required under Sec. 53a-32(a); even when defendant is acquitted of the underlying crime leading to probation revocation proceeding, probation may still be revoked. 281 C. 548. Statute can be applied only prospectively; trial court improperly considered defendant's refusal to admit to guilt during sexual offender treatment as a violation of probation. 69 Conn.App. 421; judgment reversed, see 268 Conn. 174. Section does not prevent court from revoking probation for failure to satisfy probation condition of successful completion of sexual offender treatment related to a crime committed under Sec. 53a-21(a)(1) which is not enumerated in section because section's automatic nature does not deprive courts of discretion to revoke probation under other circumstances. 95 Conn.App. 686. Simply because automatic revocation proceeding established by section arguably is inapplicable to defendant convicted after trial, it does not follow that such defendant is immune from discretionary revocation sought by defendant's probation officer on the basis of defendant's discharge from sex offender treatment in accordance with the normal procedures set forth in Sec. 53a-32. 98 CA 579. Defendant, who was aware of the terms of his probation when entering his plea, violated his probation when he refused to discuss the details of his underlying offense at counseling. 112 CA 562.