State v. Brown, 145 Conn. App. 174

Background

Defendant Jonathan Brown entered a Garvin conditional plea: if he completed program conditions (including completing the 52-session Evolve domestic-violence program and obeying its rules) he would receive a favorable disposition; failure would permit a harsher sentence.
At plea colloquy Judge Hadden explicitly warned that failure to complete or to follow Evolve rules could permit imposition of the agreed 27-month sentence with a one-year mandatory minimum.
Brown accumulated multiple unexcused absences and was twice suspended from Evolve; program staff reported disruptive conduct (alleged intoxication, refusal to leave, threatening gesture).
Brown was readmitted, ultimately completed Evolve, but the state sought sentencing on the ground Brown had breached the Garvin agreement by his suspensions/noncompliance.
Brown did not request a full evidentiary hearing disputing the program letter, and at sentencing the court imposed an 18‑month total term (including the one‑year mandatory minimum).
On appeal Brown argued (1) the court wrongly found breach because completion alone satisfied the agreement, and (2) due process required an evidentiary hearing and a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard; the appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Garvin plea required compliance with Evolve rules (not just completion)	State: plea terms required both completion and compliance; failure to follow rules breaches agreement	Brown: completion of Evolve satisfied the agreement even if there were rule violations during the program	Court: Terms were clear from plea canvass; defendant was on notice that violating Evolve rules breached the agreement; held for State
Whether trial court’s finding of breach was clearly erroneous	State: suspensions, absences, and program letter provided evidence of breach	Brown: contested circumstances but did not dispute fact of noncompliance or request evidentiary hearing	Court: ample record support (absences, program letter, disruptive conduct); finding not clearly erroneous
Whether due process required an evidentiary hearing sua sponte or before sentencing	State: no contested factual dispute presented that would trigger Stevens hearing	Brown: he disputed contents of program letter and thus was entitled to a Stevens evidentiary hearing	Court: Brown never truly disputed noncompliance and did not request a hearing; trial court questioned him and that inquiry was sufficient; no due process violation
Proper burden/standard of proof to find breach of Garvin agreement	State: Garvin standard (minimum indicia of reliability) applies	Brown: trial court should use preponderance (as in probation revocation) per concurrence in Stevens	Court: bound by State v. Stevens — minimum indicia of reliability is the correct standard; record presumed to show appropriate standard applied

Key Cases Cited

State v. Stevens, 278 Conn. 1 (explains Garvin breach standard and evidentiary-hearing principles)
State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296 (establishes Garvin conditional-plea framework)
State v. Rosado, 92 Conn. App. 823 (trial court duty to clarify plea terms)
State v. Martinez, 295 Conn. 758 (standards for clearly erroneous factual findings)
State v. Petaway, 107 Conn. App. 730 (review of burden-of-proof and appellate standards)
State v. Ricketts, 140 Conn. App. 257 (probation revocation burden discussion)
State v. McElveen, 261 Conn. 198 (collateral-consequences exception to mootness)
State v. Johnson, 71 Conn. App. 272 (appellate courts bound by Supreme Court precedent)
State v. Trotman, 68 Conn. App. 437 (plea-canvas interpretations)
State v. Small, 78 Conn. App. 14 (treatment of unpreserved sufficiency claims on appeal)
State v. Clark, 136 Conn. App. 421 (definition of Garvin agreement)