State v. Spielberg, SC19627

In August 2010 Danbury police found marijuana on Spielberg and in his home during a probation compliance visit; toys of his 4-year-old son were nearby. Spielberg pleaded guilty in April 2011 to possession of less than four ounces (§ 21a-279(c)), possession within 1500 feet of a school (§ 21a-279(d)), and risk of injury to a child (§ 53-21(a)(1)).
He received an effective sentence of five years and one day incarceration plus seven years special parole; other charges were nolled.
Public Act 11-71 (effective July 1, 2011) decriminalized possession of less than one-half ounce of marijuana, creating an erasure remedy under § 54-142d for convictions of decriminalized offenses.
Spielberg petitioned under § 54-142d to erase the records of his marijuana conviction, arguing P.A. 11-71 decriminalized his conduct; the trial court denied the petition relying on Menditto decisions.
While Spielberg’s appeal was pending, this court in State v. Menditto clarified that P.A. 11-71 decriminalized possession of less than one-half ounce and that such records may be erased—but Menditto had a factual record showing the amounts possessed; Spielberg’s plea record did not specify the amount possessed.
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Spielberg possessed less than one-half ounce; it also rejected the state’s argument that companion convictions preclude erasure under § 54-142d.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Spielberg)	Held
Whether P.A. 11-71 decriminalized possession of <½ oz and thus § 54-142d allows erasure	P.A. 11-71 did not decriminalize for erasure purposes; convictions remain violations	P.A. 11-71 decriminalized <½ oz so prior convictions for that amount qualify for erasure	Court: P.A. 11-71 decriminalized <½ oz (per Menditto); erasure available if amount <½ oz established
Whether the court may decide entitlement to erasure on plea record lacking quantity	State: plea to <4 oz is enough to deny erasure	Defendant: absence of quantity requires factual inquiry to determine entitlement	Court: factual findings by trial court are necessary; remand for evidentiary hearing
Whether companion convictions under same docket prevent erasure of one charge	State: § 54-142a(g) requires all counts to be erasable; read into § 54-142d	Defendant: § 54-142d is distinct and contains no such limitation	Court: decline to import § 54-142a(g) into § 54-142d; companion convictions do not bar erasure under § 54-142d
Whether the Supreme Court should vacate the other convictions via supervisory authority	Defendant: asks court to vacate related convictions	State: opposes	Court: denied; no extraordinary circumstances to invoke supervisory power

State v. Menditto, 315 Conn. 861 (clarified that P.A. 11-71 decriminalized possession of less than one-half ounce and such convictions may be erased under § 54-142d)
State v. Heredia, 310 Conn. 742 (statutory construction principle that omission of a provision in a related statute is significant)
State v. Edwards, 314 Conn. 465 (standards for invoking this court’s supervisory authority)
State v. Lockhart, 298 Conn. 537 (standards for extraordinary relief and supervisory authority)