State v. Smith
177 A.3d 593
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jacqui Smith was sentenced in 2013 to 10 years, execution suspended after 3 years, plus 3 years probation; released April 2015 and informed of probation conditions.
- On May 25, 2015, Bridgeport police observed Smith driving; he was issued a misdemeanor summons for driving with a suspended license (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-215(a)) and for lack of minimum insurance; State also alleged missed mental health/substance evaluations.
- Smith was arraigned on the probation-violation charge June 30, 2015; the adjudicatory hearing occurred December 22, 2015 (175 days later).
- Smith moved to dismiss under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-32(c) arguing the hearing did not occur within the statute’s 120-day limit; the trial court denied the motion, finding the 120-day provision advisory and alternatively finding good cause for delay.
- At the violation hearing the court found, by a preponderance, Smith wilfully violated probation (including failure to report and missed evaluations) and expressly found Smith had driven while his license was suspended.
- The court revoked probation and resentenced Smith to five years’ incarceration; Smith appealed, challenging denial of dismissal under § 53a-32(c) and sufficiency of evidence for the § 14-215(a) violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Smith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 53a-32(c)’s 120‑day rule is mandatory, requiring dismissal if exceeded | 120‑day period is directory; Kelley controls; trial court properly denied dismissal; good cause existed | 120‑day limit is mandatory and State failed to show good cause for delay | 120‑day provision is advisory/guideline (not jurisdictional); denial of dismissal affirmed; alternative good‑cause finding supports result |
| Whether evidence proved driving while license suspended under § 14‑215(a) | Police testimony that Smith was driving; court relied on that finding | State failed to prove the DMV mailed suspension notice to last known address (an element) | Evidence insufficient—State produced no proof notice was mailed; conviction on § 14‑215(a) cannot stand; resentencing required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kelley, 164 Conn. App. 232 (Conn. App. 2016) (held the § 53a-32(c) 120‑day limitation is a guideline/advisory, not jurisdictional)
- State v. Kelley, 326 Conn. 731 (Conn. 2017) (Supreme Court affirmed advisory nature of § 53a-32(c) time frame)
- State v. Valinski, 254 Conn. 107 (Conn. 2000) (elements for conviction under § 14-215(a) and requirement of proof of notice under § 14-111(a))
- State v. Torma, 21 Conn. App. 496 (Conn. App. 1990) (constructive notice by DMV satisfied by competent evidence that notice was mailed to defendant's last known address)
- State v. Johnson, 75 Conn. App. 643 (Conn. App. 2003) (if sentencing relied on a faulty violation finding, resentencing is required)