State v. Imperiale

• Decision Date: 07 January 2021
• Docket Number: SC 20391
• Citation: 255 A.3d 825,337 Conn. 694
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Joseph Louis IMPERIALE
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

337 Conn. 694

255 A.3d 825

STATE of Connecticut

v.Joseph Louis IMPERIALE

SC 20391

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued January 23, 2020

Officially released January 7, 2021^**

James B. Streeto, senior assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Matthew A. Weiner, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were David S. Shepack, former state's attorney, David R. Shannon, supervisory assistant state's attorney, and Gregory L. Borrelli, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Robinson, C. J., and Palmer, McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js.^*

PALMER, J.

The defendant, Joseph Louis Imperiale, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, Danaher , J. , revoking his probation and sentencing him to an effective term of imprisonment of two years. He claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion to dismiss the violation of probation charge because the condition of probation on which the charge was predicated, namely, that he participate in an inpatient sex offender treatment program, violated his fourteenth amendment rights to due process and equal protection, as well as the constitutional prohibition against the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following undisputed facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. On January 4, 2013, the defendant pleaded guilty to illegal possession of child pornography in the second degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-196e.¹ At the time of the guilty plea, the assistant state's attorney informed the trial court, Ginocchio , J ., that, following a police investigation into the trafficking of child pornography, the defendant had confessed to the possession of numerous images on his personal computer depicting young children involved in various sex acts. Before accepting the defendant's plea, the court explained to the defendant that he was waiving certain constitutional rights by pleading guilty, and the defendant stated that he understood he was doing so. The court also explained to the defendant that, under the plea agreement, he would be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of ten years, suspended after four years, followed by ten years of probation, the conditions of which would include sex offender registration and "most likely ... sex offender evaluation and treatment and many other conditions that may involve contact with children and anything [that the Office of Adult Probation] believe[s] is reasonably related to this charge." The court further advised the defendant that if, following the completion of a presentence investigative report, the court determined that the sentence contemplated under the plea agreement was appropriate, the defendant would not be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea without the court's permission. When asked whether he understood, the defendant responded that he did. The defendant also indicated that he understood that he would be permitted to withdraw his plea if the court, after reviewing the presentence investigation report, determined that the sentence agreed on by the parties was not appropriate. Following this colloquy, the court accepted the defendant's guilty plea after finding that he had made it knowingly and voluntarily and with the assistance of competent counsel.

The trial court subsequently determined that the sentence negotiated by the parties was appropriate, and, on March 15, 2013, the court sentenced the defendant in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement. At the time of sentencing, the court also recounted the following standard and special conditions of probation, as expressly set forth under the plea agreement: "[S]ex offender registration, sex offender evaluation and treatment through [a Connecticut Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders] provider," and compliance "with all recommended sex offender conditions of probation as deemed appropriate by the supervising [probation] officer." Moreover, in imposing sentence, the court emphasized the seriousness of the crime of possession of child pornography insofar as it fuels and perpetuates the "heinous" and "horrendous" sex trade that so grievously exploits and harms young children.

In August, 2015, after completing a short term sex offender treatment program for inmates, the defendant was released on parole to a transitional housing setting in Torrington. His parole was revoked almost immediately, however, after it was discovered that, just two weeks after his release, he was using a public computer to access child pornography. He was returned to prison on September 1, 2015.

On April 5, 2017, the defendant, who was still incarcerated, first met with his probation officer, Nicole Grella, via video conference. During this intake meeting, the defendant and Grella reviewed his offense, sentence and the conditions of his probation. They also discussed additional details about the defendant's life, including housing, his support network, and his concerns and anticipated needs for his impending probation. At that time, the defendant explained to Grella that he believed that he had reoffended so soon after being paroled in 2015 because of the abrupt transition from prison to community based, independent living without sufficient structure and support. The defendant further told Grella that he needed additional supervision and counseling to overcome his acknowledged addiction to child pornography and to successfully complete his period of probation.

Prior to this video conference, Grella reviewed the defendant's presentence investigation report and records. As a result of this research, Grella learned, among other things, that the defendant had committed a violent sex offense as a juvenile and that he had failed to successfully complete an inpatient sex offender treatment program at that time. Moreover, while participating in that program, the defendant exhibited "pervasive[ly] negative behavior" and admitted that he had devised a plan to be alone with one of the female staff members and to molest her. In addition, the defendant had been deemed a "high risk to sexually reoffend" on the basis of a sex offender evaluation conducted after he was sentenced to serve time in prison in 2013.

In late March, 2017, Grella spoke with the defendant's mother to discuss housing options for the defendant upon his release from prison. The defendant's mother indicated to Grella that she was in the process of moving out of state but would be able to pay for her son's housing while he remained on probation. Grella spoke with the defendant's mother again in early June, 2017, at which time she told Grella that she had secured a bed for the defendant at the same residence in Torrington where he had resided briefly following his short-lived release on parole.

Grella thereafter told the defendant that she had decided to refer him to the January Center (center), an inpatient sex offender treatment facility in Montville, for placement there upon his discharge from prison. Grella explained that the center offers the most intensive and restrictive sex offender treatment program available through the Judicial Branch's Court Support Services Division and is operated by an entity known as The Connection, Inc., which runs numerous treatment programs throughout the state. The typical length of a stay at the center, where residents live in individual rooms and participate in daily therapy, is three to six months, depending on the resident's progress. The facility is located on the grounds of the Corrigan Correctional Institution and is surrounded by a high, exterior fence topped with razor wire. Although residents of the center may not leave the facility without permission and a staff escort, the building is unlocked, and staff members are instructed not to restrain or touch a probationer seeking to leave without proper authorization. If a resident who is on probation does leave the center without such authorization, however, he or she may be charged with a violation of probation.

The defendant was initially resistant to being placed at the center, in large measure because he believed that his referral to such a restrictive treatment facility was unduly harsh and punitive. He also told Grella that his placement at the center was not warranted because his mother had secured housing for him and he had already lined up a possible employment opportunity. Over the course of several phone calls with the defendant, however, Grella explained in detail why she believed that placement at the center was the most appropriate discharge option for him. On the basis of her expertise, it was Grella's view that the conditions imposed by the center, including daily therapy sessions, would afford the defendant the best structure and opportunity for his successful reentry into the community. Grella also discussed other benefits of the defendant's placement at the center, including its minimal cost to him and his mother, and the support and assistance it would afford him when he returned to the community upon his departure from the facility, a consideration that the defendant himself had identified as critical to a successful transition. Over time, the defendant grew more agreeable to his placement at the center, and he assured Grella that he would abide by the center's rules. He also told Grella that he understood that, if he refused to comply with those rules or any other aspect of his discharge plan, he would be in violation of his probation.

On June 28, 2017, the defendant signed the conditions of his probation, thereby acknowledging his obligation to abide by them. Among the court-ordered special probationary conditions, probation officials were authorized to require the defendant to participate in a residential sex offender treatment program, and the defendant was required to complete sex offender evaluation and treatment through an approved...