State v. Crespo
190 Conn. App. 639
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2019Background
- Anthony Crespo pleaded guilty (2007) to sexual assault and related offenses against a six‑year‑old; sentenced to prison with 15 years probation and a special condition: no unsupervised contact with minors under 16 and any supervisor must be approved by his treatment provider and supervising probation officer (the "supervisor condition").
- Before release (2014) Crespo signed Office of Adult Probation forms that added a requirement that he not be in the presence of or have contact with minors under 16 without probation officer approval (the "approval condition").
- After release (2015) Crespo’s wife was approved as his supervisor. In 2016 an anonymous report alleged a 14‑year‑old was living at Crespo’s apartment; PO Michael Sullivan investigated, obtained an arrest warrant alleging violations of both the supervisor and approval conditions, and Crespo was charged with probation violation.
- At the revocation hearing Sullivan testified about the anonymous report over Crespo’s hearsay and confrontation objections; Crespo moved to dismiss arguing the approval condition conflicted with the sentencing court’s supervisor requirement, and later sought disqualification of the trial judge after an exchange about the timing of the motion.
- The court denied dismissal and disqualification, found by a fair preponderance that Crespo violated probation (crediting Sullivan’s testimony and Crespo’s alleged admission), revoked probation, and imposed a new sentence. Crespo appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Crespo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Court overruled confrontation objection without finding good cause | State: Sixth‑Amendment confrontation clause does not apply to probation revocation; even under due process the defendant failed to preserve a balancing request | Crespo: Overruling violated right to confront adverse witnesses; court should have made/find good cause before denying confrontation | Unpreserved; record inadequate—Crespo did not distinctly raise the required Morrissey/Gagnon balancing at trial, so appellate review denied |
| 2) Approval condition conflicts with sentencing court’s supervisor condition | State: Office of Adult Probation may impose reasonable, non‑inconsistent conditions under §53a‑30(b); approval and supervisor conditions complement each other | Crespo: Approval condition (PO approval required) contradicts sentencing court’s requirement that a supervisor—once approved—be sufficient | Denied—conditions are not inconsistent; approval condition is a permissible administrative condition and complements the supervisor requirement |
| 3) Trial court should have held a Franks hearing on alleged false statements in warrant affidavit | State: Crespo never requested a Franks hearing at trial; claim unpreserved | Crespo: Affidavit contained false statements necessary to probable cause and warranted a Franks hearing | Unpreserved and record inadequate for Golding review because Crespo never sought a Franks hearing and record lacks necessary factual findings |
| 4) Motion for judicial disqualification should have been granted for bias | State: Colloquy and adverse rulings do not demonstrate actual or apparent bias; Crespo failed to identify objective grounds | Crespo: Court’s remarks and rulings before recess would make a reasonable person doubt impartiality | Denied—adverse rulings and the colloquy (with apology) do not objectively show bias; denial was not an abuse of discretion |
| 5) Sufficiency of evidence that Crespo violated probation (approval condition) | State: PO testimony, Crespo’s purported admission, and witness statements supported finding by preponderance | Crespo: Evidence insufficient; conflicts and hearsay should preclude finding | Affirmed—finding not clearly erroneous; trial court could credit PO’s testimony and Crespo’s admission and infer violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (due process protections for parole revocation, including right to confront adverse witnesses)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (Morrissey procedural protections apply to probation revocation)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (preliminary showing required to obtain a hearing on alleged false statements in a warrant affidavit)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (framework for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- State v. Hill, 256 Conn. 412 (Conn. 2001) (standard of review for factual findings in probation revocation adjudicatory phase)