State v. Galberth, 170 A.3d 132

In 2002 Galberth pleaded guilty to sale of a narcotic substance and received 15 years, execution suspended after 6 years, followed by 3 years probation.
He was paroled in April 2005 with a stipulated maximum release date of September 7, 2007.
While on parole he was arrested in April 2006, pleaded guilty to new narcotics charges, and was incarcerated from October 2006 to July 20, 2012.
On July 24, 2012 he signed probation conditions for the 2002 sentence; in December 2012 he was arrested on new narcotics charges.
A probation-violation warrant issued January 29, 2013 based on the December 2012 arrest; Galberth moved to dismiss arguing his probation had already expired.
Trial court denied the motion; Galberth entered a conditional nolo contendere plea reserving the right to appeal; sentence imposed and this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Galberth)	Held
Whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the probation revocation proceeding	Jurisdiction derives from the original 2002 conviction and the court retained authority to adjudicate probation revocation	Court lacked jurisdiction because Galberth was not on probation when the warrant was executed (probation had expired)	Court had jurisdiction: revocation jurisdiction flows from the original conviction and the 2002 probation period was before the court
Whether Galberth’s probationary period had expired before the 2012 arrest (i.e., whether he was on probation when the warrant issued)	Probation did not begin until Galberth was released from custody in July 2012 because parole is custody; therefore he was on probation when the warrant issued	Probation began at his maximum release date (Sept. 7, 2007) and expired three years later; thus no active probation in 2012–2013	Held for the State: under § 53a-31(a) and controlling precedent, probation commences only upon release from custody; parolees remain in custody, so probation began July 2012 and had not expired when the warrant issued

Amodio v. Amodio, 247 Conn. 724 (1999) (presumption favoring a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction; jurisdiction defined by law)
State v. Outlaw, 60 Conn. App. 515 (2000) (probation commences upon actual release from custody; incarceration can delay start of probation)
State v. McFarland, 36 Conn. App. 440 (1994) (term "release" in § 53a-31 includes physical release from custody)
State v. Deptula, 34 Conn. App. 1 (1994) (distinction between parole and probation; parolee remains in Department of Correction custody)
State v. Strickland, 39 Conn. App. 722 (1995) (recognizing possibility of concurrent custody and probation under separate convictions)