State v. Patterson, 143 Conn. App. 804

Defendant William C. Patterson was sentenced on Nov. 6, 2007 to five years incarceration, execution suspended, and five years probation for narcotics possession and risk of injury to a child.
On April 7, 2009, police found >1 ounce of crack cocaine in the defendant's groin after a traffic stop; this violated standard and special probation conditions forbidding criminal law violations and possession of illegal substances.
At the probation revocation hearing the court found a probation violation, then proceeded to the dispositional phase and ultimately revoked probation and executed the five-year sentence.
The prosecutor proffered information about five pending narcotics-related charges against the defendant; no witnesses testified about those pending charges and the affidavit supporting an arrest warrant was not admitted.
Defense objected at sentencing on relevance/presumption-of-innocence grounds but did not raise a due process or cross-examination argument or request Golding/plain-error review.
The court relied on testimony that the quantity of cocaine was substantial and could indicate intent to sell, and concluded probation was no longer serving its rehabilitative purpose.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court’s reliance on the state’s proffer at disposition violated due process for lack of reliability and cross-examination	State: proffer may inform disposition	Patterson: proffer is not evidence, not subject to cross-examination; affidavit not admitted; minimal indicia of reliability	Not reviewed on appeal — claim not preserved and defendant did not seek Golding or plain-error review
Whether court relied on clearly erroneous facts (intent to sell inference from >1 oz)	State: quantity supports inference of distribution	Patterson: no evidence of intent to sell; inference unsupported	Rejected — court permissibly inferred intent to sell from the large quantity; not an abuse of discretion
Whether court improperly relied on proffered pending charges to find an "ongoing pattern of activity"	State: pending charges corroborate ongoing pattern	Patterson: pattern finding rests solely on proffer and is therefore erroneous	Rejected — record shows prior possession convictions and timing supported pattern finding; court did not clearly rely on proffered pending charges
Whether defendant was denied allocution under Practice Book § 43-10	State: court asked if defense wanted to add anything; counsel declined	Patterson: court failed to provide clear opportunity to allocute before sentencing	Rejected — court reasonably afforded opportunity; counsel declined on defendant's behalf; no supervisory relief warranted

State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 567 A.2d 823 (recognition of appellate review when claim unpreserved under specific test)
State v. Klinger, 103 Conn. App. 163, 927 A.2d 373 (routine on limits of appellate review when parties fail to brief plain error or Golding)
State v. Preston, 286 Conn. 367, 944 A.2d 276 (standard of review for dispositional phase of probation revocation)
State v. Parent, 8 Conn. App. 469, 513 A.2d 725 (possession of large quantities may support inference of distribution)
State v. Baker, 141 Conn. App. 669, 62 A.3d 595 (Practice Book § 43-10 does not require court to personally ask defendant if he wishes to allocute)
State v. Hall, 303 Conn. 527, 35 A.3d 237 (court may rely on counsel’s representations in absence of indication to the contrary)
Fiorelli v. Gorsky, 120 Conn. App. 298, 991 A.2d 1105 (plain error doctrine reserved for extraordinary situations requiring reversal)