147 Conn. App. 232
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Defendant Menditto pled guilty in 2009 to two counts of possession of a controlled substance, receiving two years executed, 18 months probation.
- During probation, he was arrested in 2011 on new charges of possession of a cannabis-type substance and drug paraphernalia; alleged violations of probation followed in 2011.
- Public Act 11-71, effective July 1, 2011, reclassified possession of less than one-half ounce of marijuana from a crime to a violation under new § 21a-279a (a).
- Menditto moved to dismiss March 2011 charges and filed petitions for destruction of records arguing § 54-142d destroyed prior records due to decriminalization.
- Trial court denied the petitions and motions; Menditto then entered conditional no contest pleas and was fined $150, with probation terminated; appeals followed.
- Court held that § 54-142d’s decriminalized means legalization, not merely reclassification, and savings statutes preserved the March 2011 charges under the old § 21a-279 (c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'decriminalized' in § 54-142d | Menditto: 'decriminalized' means reclassifying a crime to a violation. | State: 'decriminalized' means legalization, not mere reclassification. | Decriminalized means legalization; destruction of records denied. |
| Destruction of records eligibility under § 54-142d | Records should be erased due to decriminalization. | Records remain actionable since decriminalization equates to legalization and § 54-142d should be read with offense meaning. | No erasure; records not destroyed. |
| Effect of savings statutes on probation and 2011 charges | Savings statutes keep actions erased; probation and 2011 charges should be dismissed. | Savings statutes preserve prosecutions; old statute controls for 2011 charges. | Savings statutes apply; 2011 charges not dismissed. |
| Retroactivity of P.A. 11-71 | P.A. 11-71 retroactive via § 54-142d to erase prior records. | No clear retroactive expression; statute prospective unless clearly stated. | P.A. 11-71 not retroactive; old penalties/applications preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. LaFleur, 307 Conn. 115 (2012) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning and context)
- State v. Boswell, 142 Conn. App. 21 (2013) (importing offense meaning from § 53a-24(a) to § 54-142d)
- State v. Graham, 56 Conn. App. 507 (2000) (savings statutes preserve prior offenses when repeal occurs)
- McCoy v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 300 Conn. 144 (2011) (import of offense definition and retroactivity considerations)
- State v. Fernando A., 294 Conn. 1 (2009) (statutory definitions and interpretive guidance)
- Felician Sisters of St. Francis of Connecticut, Inc. v. Historic District Commission, 284 Conn. 838 (2008) (textual and contextual statutory interpretation)