332 Conn. 639
Conn.2019Background
- Defendant Dudley had prior narcotics conviction (2007) and was on probation with a condition not to violate any criminal law.
- In July 2010 he was arrested for possession (less than ½ ounce) and sale of a controlled substance; in July 2012 he pled (Alford) guilty to possession of less than four ounces of marijuana and admitted violating probation.
- In 2011 Connecticut enacted P.A. 11-71 (§ 21a-279a), reducing penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana (decriminalizing possession of less than ½ ounce to a civil fine).
- After State v. Menditto (holding P.A. 11-71 decriminalized that possession for purposes of the erasure statute), Dudley successfully petitioned under General Statutes § 54-142d to erase records of his 2012 marijuana conviction.
- Dudley then sought erasure of the records of the 2012 probation-violation finding, arguing the violation was premised on conduct that has been decriminalized; the trial court denied that petition and the denial was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Dudley’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 54-142d requires erasure of probation-violation records when underlying conduct was decriminalized | The probation violation was premised on a now-decriminalized conviction, so the probation record “pertains to such case” and must be erased | § 54-142d applies only to records of the criminal case in which there was a conviction; probation revocation is a separate, civil-like proceeding and not covered | Court held § 54-142d does not require erasure of probation-violation records; probation proceedings are not criminal convictions and cannot be "decriminalized" |
| Whether the phrase “pertaining to such case” extends erasure to probation files | "Pertaining to" is broad and includes records that reference or rely on the conviction (including probation records) | "Pertaining to" limits destruction to police/court/prosecutor records of the criminal case itself, not separate probation files | Court adopted narrower reading: statute targets records of the criminal case (police/court/prosecutor records), not separate probation proceedings |
| Whether erasure of the conviction eradicates the factual basis for the probation violation | Erasure removes the conviction so nothing supports the probation-violation finding | Violation was based on the underlying conduct and arrest and on Dudley’s admission to violating probation; conviction is not necessary | Court held erasure of conviction does not defeat the violation finding because the underlying conduct and Dudley’s admission supported the violation |
| Whether ambiguities should be resolved by rule of lenity in defendant’s favor | Apply lenity to construe erasure statute broadly to favor erasure | Rule of lenity is inapplicable to this procedural, non‑penal statute; legislative history clarifies intent | Court refused to apply lenity; used legislative history and statutory context to resolve any ambiguity in favor of the state |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Menditto, 315 Conn. 861 (2015) (held P.A. 11-71 decriminalized possession of less than one-half ounce of marijuana for purposes of the erasure statute)
- State v. Davis, 229 Conn. 285 (1994) (probation revocation proceedings are civil-like and decided by preponderance of evidence)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (describes Alford plea: defendant may plead guilty while maintaining innocence when evidence strongly supports conviction)