State v. Crosby
125 Conn. App. 775
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Defendant Crosby was charged with violating conditions of probation on January 4, 2008, leading to a violation hearing on June 25, 2009.
- Probation officer Gordon testified Crosby had not lived where promised, left Connecticut without permission, and was on Metro-North property, violating probation conditions.
- Gordon described Crosby as a high-risk client with an obsessive Metro-North fixation and stated further probation would not help.
- The state argued that probation had outlived its usefulness given Crosby's lengthy criminal history and repeated violations; Crosby contended medical/psychiatric conditions prevented compliance.
- The trial court found violations and, in the dispositional phase, concluded probation would not serve its purposes and sentenced Crosby to eight months of incarceration (four months per probation violation, consecutive).
- Post-judgment motions for reconsideration and for a bond pending appeal were denied; Crosby appeals challenging both the probation revocation and the bond denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abuse of discretion in revoking probation | Crosby argues medical/psychiatric needs prevent compliance; probation should not be revoked. | Crosby contends continued probation would serve no rehabilitative or public-safety purpose due to his conditions and history. | No abuse; revocation affirmed; probation no longer serves its beneficial purposes. |
| Bond pending appeal denial review | Crosby seeks bond pending appeal. | Court's denial should be reviewable on appeal. | Dismissed for lack of proper review mechanism; bond issue not reviewable on direct appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barnes, 116 Conn. App. 76, 974 A.2d 815 (2009) (two-phase probation revocation standard)
- State v. Faraday, 268 Conn. 174, 842 A.2d 567 (2004) (abuse of discretion standard in sentencing phase)
- State v. Hill, 256 Conn. 412, 773 A.2d 931 (2001) (noncompliance consequences and discretion on probation)
- State v. Fernando A., 294 Conn. 1, 981 A.2d 427 (2009) (exclusive remedy for bail orders is petition for review)
- State v. Dellacamera, 110 Conn.App. 653, 955 A.2d 613 (2008) (petition for review for orders concerning release)