State v. Edwards
Decision Date | 18 March 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 34279.,34279. |
Citation | 148 Conn.App. 760,87 A.3d 1144 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Joseph EDWARDS. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Deren Manasevit, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).
Lisa A. Riggione, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Kevin D. Lawlor, state's attorney, and John E. Barney, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
LAVINE, BEACH and BEAR, Js.
The dispositive question in this appeal is what constitutes a change of address for the purposes of our sex offender registration statutes. The defendant, Joseph Edwards, appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation pursuant to General Statutes § 53a–32(a), following an arrest on a charge of failing to register as a sex offender in violation of General Statutes § 54–251(a) and (e).1 On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred when it interpreted § 54–251 and that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he violated his probation. 2 We agree with the defendant and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.3
The following evidence, as adduced at the probation violation hearing, is relevant to our resolution of this appeal. As a result of previous criminal convictions, the defendant is required to register as a sex offender for life. In June, 1999, the defendantwas convicted of first degree robbery and sentenced to twenty years incarceration, execution suspended after ten years, followed by five years probation. The defendant's probationary period for the robbery conviction began on December 17, 2008, and continued to December 17, 2013. As a standard condition of probation, the defendant agreed not to violate any criminal laws. On August 13, 2010, the defendant was arrested for failing to notify the Commissioner of Public Safety (commissioner) of an address change pursuant to § 54–251.4 Thereafter, the defendant was charged with a violation of probation.
At the probation violation hearing conducted on October 26, 2011, the court heard testimony from two witnesses and the defendant. Brian Reilly, a West Haven police officer, testified that the address on file with the Connecticut Sex Offender Registry for the defendant was 73 Fresh Meadow Road. He stated that on August 12, 2010, he received a complaint from the owner of a warehouse located at 15 Center Street that the defendant, who had been renting a storage space since May, 2010, had been living in the warehouse. Reilly testified that on August 12, 2010, he went to 73 Fresh Meadow Road to verify that the defendant was still residing there. Reilly testified that he found no evidence that the defendant was living in the residence at 73 Fresh Meadow Road.
Carla Scinto, the defendant's probation officer, testified that the defendant told her that he had been evicted from the home on 73 Fresh Meadow Road on July 13, 2010, and that he had been living in his box truck on the rear of the property. The defendant, on the other hand, testified that in June, 2010, he had been evicted from 73 Fresh Meadow Road, but that he had continued to live inside the home on 73 Fresh Meadow Street on the second floor. He also stated that the electric bill remained in his name through September, 2010. Finally, he testified that when the police arrested him, they found him at 73 Fresh Meadow Road.
The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant had violated § 54–251(a) and (e) because he was homeless and did not inform the commissioner of this fact. Accordingly, the court found that the defendant had violated the term of his probation that he not violate any criminal laws. The court stated: (Emphasis added.) The trial court revoked the defendant's probation and sentenced him to the remaining portion of his suspended sentence. This appeal followed.5
On appeal, the defendant claims that the court misinterpreted § 54–251 and that there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that the defendant had violated his probation by failing to inform the commissioner of an address change pursuant to § 54–251(a) and (e). The defendant claims that the court erred when it interpreted the term “change of address” as used in that statute. We agree with the defendant.
We begin by setting forth the legal principles and the standard of review pertinent to our discussion. (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Welch, 40 Conn.App. 395, 401, 671 A.2d 379, cert. denied, 236 Conn. 918, 673 A.2d 1145 (1996).
(Citation omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hooks, 80 Conn.App. 75, 80–81, 832 A.2d 690, cert. denied, 267 Conn. 908, 840 A.2d 1171 (2003).
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted). State v. Drupals, 306 Conn. 149, 159–160, 49 A.3d 962 (2012).
To determine whether the court properly found that the defendant changed his residence address, and thereby violated § 54–251(a) and (e) by not informing the commissioner of this change, we must ascertain what constitutes a residence address for the purposes of our sex offender registration statutes. The defendant argues that the court improperly construed the term “change of address” and that the court erred when it concluded that becoming homeless necessarily means there has been a change of address. The state, on the other hand, argues that the court properly construed § 54–251(a) and (e) to require sex offenders to notify the registry when they become homeless. 6
In State v. Drupals, supra, 306 Conn. at 163, 49 A.3d 962 our Supreme Court held that the term “residence address” means “the act or fact of living in a given place for some time....” The Supreme Court also noted that, “[t]he definition of residence we adopt today furthers the purpose of [§ 54–251], which is to allow the [commissioner] to keep track of the registrant's location....” Id., at 165, 49 A.3d 962. Moreover, our Supreme Court noted that the legislature intended “residence address” to be “synonymous with ‘place of residence,’ or more precisely, to denote the physical description of where the registrant resides.” Id., at 161 n. 7, 49 A.3d 962.
Having reviewed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Taveras
...M. , 303 Conn. 18, 44, 31 A.3d 1063 (2011) ; State v. Acker , 166 Conn. App. 404, 408, 141 A.3d 938 (2016) ; State v. Edwards , 148 Conn. App. 760, 769, 87 A.3d 1144 (2014) ; State v. Fermaint , 91 Conn. App. 650, 663, 881 A.2d 539, cert. denied, 276 Conn. 922, 888 A.2d 90 (2005).The state,......
-
Cammarota v. Guerrera
... ... ); a nonexhaustive list of recognized conflicts of interest include the following: representation of codefendants by a single attorney; see State v. Williams, 203 Conn. 159, 167, 523 A.2d 1284 (1987); where interests of an attorney's client conflict with interests of a former client of the ... ...
-
State v. Quintiliano
...and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Edwards , 148 Conn. App. 760, 765, 87 A.3d 1144 (2014). "[A] defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal and retrial is barred if an appellate court determines that th......
-
2014 Connecticut Appellate Review
...314 Conn. 926, 101 A.3d 271 (2014). [101] 147 Conn.App. 465, 83 A.3d 674, cert, granted, 311 Conn. 924, 86 A.3d 470 (2014). [102] 148 Conn.App. 760, 87 A.3d 1144 (2014). [103] 148 Conn.App. 565, 86 A.3d 1059, cert, granted, 314 Conn. 308, 100 A.3d 401 (2014). [104] Anders v. California, 386......