Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
State v. Altajir, Case No. AC 31375 (Conn. Ct. App.; Sept. 14, 2010)

State v. Altajir, Case No. AC 31375 (Conn. Ct. App.; Sept. 14, 2010)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 141|Likes:
Defendant's probation is revoked as a result of her violating conditions of probation. The prosecution admits Facebook photos to show that she's no longer a good candidate for probation. The court of appeals rejects defendant's arguments that this was error.
Defendant's probation is revoked as a result of her violating conditions of probation. The prosecution admits Facebook photos to show that she's no longer a good candidate for probation. The court of appeals rejects defendant's arguments that this was error.

More info:

Published by: Venkat Balasubramani on Nov 02, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Bishop, Beach and West, Js.
 Argued May 17—officially released September 14, 2010
(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Litchfield, Ginocchio, J.)
 Moira L. Buckley
, with whom, on the brief, was
Mor- gan P. Rueckert
, for the appellant (defendant).
Timothy J. Sugrue
, assistant state’s attorney, withwhom, on the brief, was
David Shepack
, state’s attor-ney, for the appellee (state).
BEACH, J. The defendant, Alia K. Altajir, appealsfrom the judgment of the trial court revoking her proba-tion and sentencing her to three years incarceration.The defendant claims that she was denied due processbecause (1) she did not receive adequate notice, (2)the state was not required to prove by a preponderanceoftheevidencecertain‘‘unchargedviolations’ofproba-tion raised at the disposition hearing, and (3) the courtadmitted unreliable evidence and substantially reliedon it in rendering its sentence. She also claims that thecourt abused its discretion by revoking her probation.We affirm the judgment of the trial court.The following facts and procedural history are rele- vant to our resolution of the defendant’s appeal. On July 10, 2004, the defendant was involved in a motor vehicle accident. At approximately 2:20 a.m., the defen-dant lost control of the vehicle she was driving. Itcrossedthehighwayandtraveleddownanembankmentbefore becoming submerged in the Housatonic River. As a result of the accident, a passenger in the vehicle,Dustin Church, died by drowning.The defendant was thereafter arrested and chargedwith one count of misconduct with a motor vehicle in violation of General Statutes § 53a-57 and one count of operating a motor vehicle while under the influenceof intoxicating liquor or drugs in violation of GeneralStatutes (Rev. to 2003) § 14-227a (a). The defendantsubsequently pleaded nolo contendere to both counts.Thedefendant’ssentencinghearingwasheldonJanu-ary 5,2007. Pursuantto thedefendant’s pleaagreement,thecourtimposedatotaleffectivesentenceoffiveyearsimprisonment,execution suspended after oneyear,andfive years probation, along with several conditions. Thedefendant was required, inter alia, to use an ignitioninterlock device
on any vehicle owned or operated byher, to attend school full-time or to obtain full-timeemployment, to perform fifty hours of community ser- vice each year of probation, not to operate a vehiclewithout a valid operator’s license, to abstain from vio-lating any laws and to refrain from leaving the statewithout permission.
The sentencing court stated: ‘‘So. . . there are ten or eleven conditions here, plus thenormal conditions. If you do ten out of eleven, that isnot good enough. If you violate one of those conditions you could be violated and wind up serving the balanceof the four years.’’The defendant served her prison term; her period of  probation commenced on January 4, 2008. On April 17,2009, the defendant was involved in a minor motor vehicle accident. A police investigation revealed thatthe defendant was driving the vehicle without an igni-tion interlock device installed on it and without a validdriver’s license, both of which were requirements of 
her probation. As a result, an arrest warrant applicationwas filed on the basis of these two alleged violationsof probation. The defendant then was arrested andcharged with violating her probation in violation of General Statutes § 53a-32.
The adjudicatory phase of the probation revocationhearingwasconducted on May19,2009.Atthishearing,the defendant knowingly and voluntarily admitted tothe two violations of probation charged in the arrestwarrant: operating a vehicle without a valid license andoperating a vehicle without an ignition interlock devicein violation of § 53a-32. The court accepted the plea,foundthedefendanttohaveviolatedthetwoconditionsand continued the matter for disposition.The dispositional phase of the hearing occurred on July 31, 2009. The state sought to have the defendant’s probation revoked and the remaining four years of incarceration imposed. In support of this request, thestate made several arguments as to why the defendantwas no longer an appropriate candidate for probation.The state reiterated that the defendant admitted to hav-ing violated two conditions of her probation.
The statealso alluded to conduct, which, if charged, could haveconstituted violations of probation. The conduct wasnot charged in the warrant or raised in the adjudicatory phase of the violation of probation proceedings. Thestate suggested that the defendant failed to attendschool full-time and to obtain full-time employment.The state provided the defendant’s college transcript,which indicated that she took only two evening classesduring the spring, 2009 semester, both of which shefailed. The defendant also conceded that she had failedto obtain any form of employment. The state furthersuggested that the defendant failed fully to perform herrequired community service hours.
The state also maintained that several photographsofthedefendantthatwerepostedonherFacebookpageindicatedthatshehadleftthestatewithoutpermission.
Many of these photographs also depicted the defendantdrinking alcohol and attending various parties andsocial events. The state conceded that drinking alcoholwas not itself illegal and did not in itself violate a condi-tion of the defendant’s probation. The state argued,however,thatinferencescouldbedrawn thatthedefen-dant possibly could have been drinking and driving andthat the photographs purported to show that she hadnot reformed, nor had she learned from her mistakes. After considerable discussion regarding the photo-graphs, the state sought to have them admitted intoevidence. The court,
Ginocchio, J 
., admitted some of the photographs over the defendant’s objection thatthey were cumulative and inflammatory.
 Attheconclusion of thedispositionalproceeding,thecourt stated that ‘‘I’m looking at these pictures, and allI can think of is, where is the remorse?’’ The court

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Robert Sprague liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->