State v. Rodriguez
130 Conn. App. 645
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Defendant Josué Rodriguez was on probation for a 2005 narcotics sale conviction; probation included no new offenses and a zero tolerance for violations.
- In 2007 he committed new offenses (risk of injury to a child and burglary) and his probation was to run concurrently with the 2005 term; he remained on probation.
- On November 14, 2008, Sanchez (his former wife) observed him near her home at night, where he allegedly vandalized property and started a gasoline-fume related incident; he fled after being seen.
- On April 13, 2009, the court found Rodriguez violated probation by criminal mischief and violating a no-contact order and revoked probation, sentencing him to the full 12-year term from the 2005 conviction.
- The state later argued the sufficiency issue was moot because Rodriguez pled guilty to an arson-related charge in a separate proceeding under Alford, with an eight-year sentence concurrent to the probation-violation term; Rodriguez pursued a habeas petition challenging the underlying conviction.
- The dispositional phase claim remains: Rodriguez argues the court improperly placed blame for the relationship dysfunction on him, rather than sharing responsibility with Sanchez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is sufficient evidence to prove probation violation | Rodriguez | Rodriguez | Moot; sufficiency claim dismissed as moot |
| Whether the probation-revocation and re-imposition of the original sentence was an abuse of discretion | State | Rodriguez | No abuse of discretion; proper balance of rehabilitation and public safety; reinstatement of original sentence affirmed |
| Whether the sufficiency claim is moot due to intervening conviction | State | Rodriguez | Moot; collateral attack on intervening conviction does not revive controversy |
| Whether the court properly considered mental illness in disposition | State | Rodriguez | No abuse; record supports court’s discretion in considering rehabilitation and risk; mental illness not controlling |
| Whether the dispositional phase claim is moot | State | Rodriguez | Not moot; practical relief exists for dispositional error claim |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Milner, 130 Conn. App. 19 (Conn. App. 2011) (addresses mootness of collateral attacks on intervening conviction)
- State v. Faraday, 268 Conn. 174 (Conn. 2004) (standard for review of probation-revocation decisions)
- State v. Mapp, 118 Conn. App. 470 (Conn. App. 2009) (broad discretion in revocation decisions; purposes of probation)
- State v. Dull, 59 Conn. App. 579 (Conn. App. 2000) (insanity/mental illness may be considered; but not mandatory reversal)
- State v. Agli, 122 Conn. App. 590 (Conn. App. 2010) (diminished capacity not necessarily fatal to probation revocation)
- State v. Preston, 286 Conn. 367 (Conn. 2008) (dispositional-phase relief available even if underlying offense not in dispute)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (allowing guilty-plea-based conviction despite evidence of innocence)