State v. Andaz, 181 Conn. App. 228

Defendant Dave Andaz (aka David Polek) was sentenced to three years of probation after a conviction for possession of a weapon in a correctional institution; one condition prohibited violating any state or federal criminal law.
While on probation, Andaz was arrested May 5, 2015 for an alleged assault and again on July 29, 2015 for crimes after being found in an abandoned building.
A probation violation warrant issued July 30, 2015 cited the July 29 arrest as the basis for the violation.
Six days before the probation revocation hearing (December 2, 2015), the state filed a substitute long-form information switching the alleged basis for the violation to the May 5 assault arrest; defense counsel received and reviewed the substitute information the same day and did not request a continuance or object.
At the December 8, 2015 hearing the court found by a preponderance that Andaz had engaged in criminal conduct (the assault) and revoked probation, imposing 30 months incarceration.
On appeal, Andaz claimed for the first time that the substitute information filed six days before the hearing violated his due process right to fair notice and caused unfair surprise and prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Andaz)	Held
Whether filing a substitute information six days before the probation revocation hearing deprived defendant of due process notice	The state argued that substitute informations are permissible before a hearing; the substitute was filed before the hearing, defense got it, reviewed it, and raised no prejudice.	Andaz argued the late substitution caused unfair surprise and prejudice and thus violated his due process right to fair notice.	Court held no due process violation: substitute information was filed before the hearing, defense received and reviewed it without objection, and the underlying probation condition alleged (no criminal conduct) remained the same; six days was adequate notice.

State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (framework for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (Conn. 2015) (modification of Golding review standard)
State v. Outlaw, 60 Conn. App. 515 (Conn. App. 2000) (permitting amendment or substitution of information before trial/hearing)
State v. Repetti, 60 Conn. App. 614 (Conn. App. 2000) (no due process violation where substitute information filed before probation hearing and defendant did not object)
State v. Iovanna, 80 Conn. App. 220 (Conn. App. 2003) (adequate notice where substitute information filed at start of probation hearing)
State v. Hooks, 80 Conn. App. 75 (Conn. App. 2003) (knowledge of criminal activity while on probation satisfies notice requirement for condition violation)
State v. Marsala, 44 Conn. App. 84 (Conn. App. 1997) (court may allow amendment on day trial begins absent prejudice)