State v. Orr
Decision Date | 04 August 2020 |
Docket Number | AC 40886 |
Citation | 199 Conn.App. 427,237 A.3d 15 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Anthony D. ORR |
Anthony D. Orr, self-represented, the appellant (defendant).
Denise B. Smoker, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Maureen Platt, state's attorney, and Terence D. Mariani, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
In this violation of probation case, the self-represented defendant, Anthony D. Orr,1 appeals from the judgment rendered by the trial court after it found him in violation of his probation pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-32. On appeal, the defendant claims that his state and federal constitutional rights to due process, to a fair trial, and to be convicted upon sufficient evidence were violated.2 Specifically, he claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence pursuant to which the court could find by a preponderance of the evidence that he had violated the terms of his probation; (2) the court found that he had violated state laws with which he had not been charged; (3) the state suppressed evidence in violation of Brady ;3 (4) the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the state to try the violation of probation case before it tried a criminal case that was then pending against him; (5) he was denied due process because he did not know the nature of the charges against him; and (6) the court violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. With respect to each of his claims, the defendant has requested that we review them pursuant to State v. Golding , 213 Conn. 233, 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R ., 317 Conn. 773, 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015),4 the plain error doctrine,5 or for abuse of discretion. On the basis of our review of the record, the briefs, and arguments of the parties, we conclude that the defendant's claim of insufficient evidence is moot and his purported constitutional claims fail under the third prong of Golding because the claimed constitutional violations did not exist and the defendant was not denied due process or a fair trial. We, therefore, dismiss the defendant's claim of insufficient evidence and otherwise affirm the judgment of the trial court.
A summary of the facts underlying the defendant's appeal follows. On February 19, 2009, the defendant, who had been found guilty of robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (4), was sentenced to twelve years of incarceration, execution suspended after seven years, and five years of probation. In August, 2014, the defendant completed the incarceration portion of his sentence and was released on probation. On September 4, 2014, the defendant met with his probation officer, Timothy Fenn, and signed conditions of probation that required him, among other things, (1) not to violate any criminal law of this state, (2) to submit to urinalysis, (3) to report to the Office of Adult Probation as directed, and (4) to inform his probation officer if he were arrested.
On October 6, 2016, the defendant was arrested in Waterbury and charged with two counts of possession of narcotics with intent to sell, operation of a drug factory, possession of less than four ounces of marijuana, and interfering with a search. The defendant's arrest resulted from an investigation undertaken by the Waterbury police into the sale of narcotics by Jermaine Robinson and an apartment at 119 Angel Drive in Waterbury (apartment). Following the defendant's arrest, Fenn applied for a warrant for his separate arrest on the ground that the defendant had violated his probation. The defendant was arrested in November, 2016, and charged with violation of probation pursuant to § 53a-32. The defendant's violation of probation hearing was held in June, 2017. After the court, K. Murphy, J ., found that the defendant had violated the conditions of his probation and that his rehabilitation level was minimal, the court revoked his probation and sentenced the defendant to five years of imprisonment.6 The defendant appealed.
In the section of his brief concerning the nature of the proceedings, the defendant stated: ‘‘On June 16, 2017, the court found the defendant violated condition #1 of probation, and based on that finding sentenced the defendant to [five years of] imprisonment.’’ The defendant's statement is inaccurate. Although the court first had to determine whether the defendant had violated the conditions of his probation, the court sentenced the defendant to five years of incarceration because, during the dispositional phase of the proceeding, the court found that the defendant's rehabilitation level was minimal and the beneficial purposes of probation were no longer being met. In view of the defendant's lack of understanding regarding the violation of probation process, we set forth, in general and in detail, the law regarding violation of probation proceedings before we address his specific claims.
Section 53a-32, the probation violation statute, provides in relevant part: ’
’(Citations omitted.) Roberson v. Connecticut , 501 F.2d 305, 308 (2d Cir. 1974). A probationer whose condition of probation requires that the probationer not violate any criminal law may violate that condition without being convicted of a crime . See id.
’(Citation omitted; emphasis added.) State v. Baxter , 19 Conn. App. 304, 321, 563 A.2d 721 (1989). ’(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Payne v. Robinson , 10 Conn. App. 395, 401, 523 A.2d 917 (1987), aff'd, 207 Conn. 565, 541 A.2d 504, cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898, 109 S. Ct. 242, 102 L. Ed. 2d 230 (1988).
Practice Book § 43-29 provides in relevant part that, unless the revocation of probation is based upon a conviction for a new offense, ’(Emphasis added.)
’(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gauthier , 73 Conn. App. 781, 789, 809 A.2d 1132 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 937, 815 A.2d 137 (2003).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Imperiale
...liberty," once granted, it is "a constitutionally protected interest"; (internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Orr , 199 Conn. App. 427, 434–35, 237 A.3d 15 (2020) ; and, therefore, "[a]ny restriction ... [on] a probationer's otherwise inviolable constitutional rights can be justified o......
- State v. Imperiale
-
Prime Locations of CT, LLC v. Rocky Hill Dev., LLC
......The declaration also prohibits and restricts certain types of modifications and terminations. 10 237 A.3d 12 Nowhere in these requirements and restrictions, however, does the declaration state that a lot owner is not permitted to withdraw a lot from the association. A modification or termination resulting in a lot owner's withdrawal of a lot from the association, although impactful, is not prohibited by the language in § 9.10 199 Conn.App. 657 of the declaration. Further, because the ......