State v. Milner, 21 A.3d 907

Milner was convicted of burglary in the first degree in 1995 and received a 15-year term with 10 years’ imprisonment suspended and 3 years’ probation.
He began probation on August 24, 2005, which ran to August 24, 2008, and he signed probation conditions including reporting and refraining from criminal activity.
On January 28, 2008, Milner was arrested on numerous charges including weapons possession, larceny, and probation-violation allegations.
At the probation-violation hearing, probation officer testimony showed reporting failures and failed attempts to contact Milner and locate him through various numbers and mailings.
On January 18, 2008, Milner allegedly participated in a high-speed pursuit; police recovered a gun in a Lexus he drove, and the car was later found stolen.
The trial court found a probation violation and imposed a 48-month sentence; Milner appealed, raising mootness, allocution, and sentencing challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the probation-violation finding is moot.	State argues mootness due to Milner's Alford plea to related charges and lack of direct appeal.	Milner contends live controversy persists because collateral attack could revive issues.	Mootness resolved in Milner's favor; appeal limited to sufficiency of evidence for violation.
Whether Milner was deprived of allocution rights during dispositional phase.	State contends allocution rights were not violated; no preservation error.	Milner contends court discouraged allocution by abrupt refusals during adjudicatory-to-dispositional transition.	No reversible error; allocution rights not violated and claim not preserved.
Whether the sentence for probation violation was an abuse of discretion.	State argues the court properly weighed rehabilitative goals and safety, justifying withdrawal of probation.	Milner argues the sentence was based on erroneous assumptions about gun knowledge and exceeded authority.	Court did not abuse discretion; proper consideration of conduct and rehabilitation supported 48-month sentence.

State v. Singleton, 274 Conn. 426 (Conn. 2005) (mootness in probation-violation context when underlying conviction not timely appealed)
State v. T.D., 286 Conn. 353 (Conn. 2008) (live controversy persists if underlying conviction is on appeal)
State v. Mapp, 118 Conn. App. 470 (Conn. App. 2009) (collateral attack does not revive mootness in probation context)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (Alford plea doctrine relevance to underlying conviction)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (procedure for constitutional-error review on unpreserved claims)
State v. Strickland, 243 Conn. 339 (Conn. 1997) (allocution right derives from practice rule, not constitutional entitlement)