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,
., 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