162 Conn.App. 145
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Defendant Arik Fetscher was stopped in Greenwich after speeding; Breathalyzer readings were .167 and .174; charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-227a).
- He applied for Connecticut’s pretrial alcohol education program under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-56g, which can result in dismissal after successful completion.
- Bail commissioner determined Fetscher ineligible because of a 1997 New York conviction for a similar offense.
- Fetscher argued the out-of-state conviction should not bar program eligibility because a ten-year "fresh start" rule should apply; he also argued unequal application of the law.
- Trial court denied his application and his subsequent motion to dismiss; Fetscher entered a conditional nolo contendere plea and was sentenced. He appealed, challenging the court’s statutory construction and raising constitutional claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Fetscher) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §54-56g(a)(1)(D)’s phrase "has not been convicted in any other state at any time" permits a ten-year limitation for out-of-state convictions | The statute’s plain language bars any out-of-state conviction at any time; court should not rewrite statute to add a ten-year limit | A ten-year "fresh start" should apply so prior out-of-state convictions older than ten years do not bar program eligibility | The court held the statute is plain: "at any time" precludes program eligibility for any prior out-of-state conviction; no ten-year rule imposed |
| Whether the statutory language is ambiguous so extratextual sources may be consulted | Statute is unambiguous; rely on text and related statutes | Statute ambiguous given legislative purpose and program’s remedial nature; extratextual sources should be considered to avoid unfair results | The court held the language is plain and unambiguous; extratextual sources not consulted; statutory text controls |
| Whether denying program eligibility due to an old out-of-state conviction produces an absurd or unworkable result warranting judicial modification | Denial consistent with legislative choice; states may differ in laws and diversion options | Denial produces disparate treatment and is unfair to similarly culpable defendants | The court rejected the absurdity argument, noting the legislature could have limited the disqualification period but did not; differing state laws are acceptable |
| Whether unpreserved constitutional claims (due process, double jeopardy, privileges and immunities) merit review | State argued claims inadequately briefed and unpreserved | Fetscher claimed constitutional violations arising from program ineligibility and "grandfathering" | Court declined to review constitutional claims as inadequately briefed and unpreserved |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. DiPaolo, 88 Conn. App. 53 (Conn. App. 2005) (plain meaning of statutory conviction language controls; rejected argument to rewrite statute despite perceived unfairness)
- State v. Buckland, 313 Conn. 205 (Conn. 2014) (standard of statutory interpretation; start with text and context)
- State v. Anderson, 74 Conn. App. 633 (Conn. App. 2003) (cardinal rule: where statute language is plain, courts must follow it and not read in additional provisions)
- State v. DiLoreto, 88 Conn. App. 393 (Conn. App. 2005) (discusses program completion may lead to dismissal)
- McCoy v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 300 Conn. 144 (Conn. 2011) (explains interaction between program diversion and prior convictions for sentencing purposes)