State v. Davis, 186 Conn. App. 385

Davis pleaded guilty (May 2016) to possession with intent to sell; sentence: 12 years suspended, five years probation with conditions including treatment and random urinalysis.
He missed required substance/mental-health appointments, tested positive for cocaine and marijuana, and was arrested on August 15, 2016 for multiple drug-related felonies in Bridgeport.
Probation officer filed an arrest-warrant application and the state charged a violation of probation under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-32.
At a January 17, 2017 Norwalk hearing defense counsel announced representation and stated the matter would be transferred to Bridgeport; the court ordered the transfer with no objection from the prosecutor.
Davis moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the transfer violated Practice Book § 41-23; the trial court denied the motion, held a revocation hearing in Bridgeport, found a violation, denied a continuance request, and revoked probation, sentencing Davis to nine years.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether transfer to Bridgeport deprived court of jurisdiction	State: transfer was valid because defendant (through counsel) and prosecutor consented; venue objection only	Davis: transfer violated Practice Book § 41-23 and therefore court lacked jurisdiction	Court: Transfer implicated venue (procedural), not jurisdiction; transcript shows consent; denial of dismissal affirmed
Whether Davis’s absence from the January 17 change-of-venue hearing violated his federal right to be present	State: any absence was harmless; defendant would not have contributed or changed outcome	Davis: absence was at a critical stage; he could have objected to transfer and his presence was required	Court: Unpreserved claim fails under Golding fourth prong; any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because no specific objection identified and evidence would be same in Norwalk
Whether denial of continuance for allocution until underlying charges resolved violated right of allocution	State: stipulated that allocution statements would not be used against Davis in pending criminal cases; court reinforced that protection	Davis: needed continuance to protect allocution rights pending resolution of related criminal matters	Court: Controlled by State v. Blake; with state’s stipulation and court’s representation, Davis had full and enforceable opportunity to allocute; denial was proper

Savage v. Aronson, 214 Conn. 256 (Conn. 1990) (distinguishes venue from jurisdiction)
State v. Kelley, 206 Conn. 323 (Conn. 1988) (venue is procedural and waivable)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (framework for unpreserved constitutional claims)
State v. Blake, 289 Conn. 586 (Conn. 2008) (allocution rights and stipulation protecting statements from use at trial)
State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2003) (trial court discretion on change of venue)
Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (U.S. 2002) (definition of critical stages having significant consequences)
State v. Campbell, 328 Conn. 444 (Conn. 2018) (right to presence and due process considerations)