State v. Owens
Syllabus
The defendant, who had been on probation in connection with his convic- tions, in two separate dockets, of violation of probation and interfering with an officer, appealed from the trial court's judgments revoking his probation and imposing a sentence of incarceration. He claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly denied his motion to dismiss, which alleged violations of his right to a speedy trial and of the 120 day guideline contained in the revocation of probation statute (§ 53a-32). Held: The trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss was not clearly erroneous, as § 53a-32 (c) does not extend the right to a speedy trial to probation revocation proceedings, and the court found that the commence- ment of the hearing was tolled in light of the defendant's voluminous motion practice and the numerous files pending before the court. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in waiting to rule on the defen- dant's request to represent himself, as the court reasonably waited to canvass the defendant for a period of approximately six weeks while a competency evaluation of the defendant was pending in another jurisdiction, and the delay in the court's canvass did not prejudice the defendant, who then represented himself at all critical stages of the proceedings. The trial court's finding that the defendant violated his probation was sup- ported by sufficient evidence, including testimony by the victim, which the court found to be highly credible. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that his due process rights were violated as a result of prosecutorial impropriety, specifically, that the prosecutor failed to correct certain statements by the victim during her testimony, which the defendant alleged were false or misleading, as this court's review of the victim's testimony revealed that the defendant had not demonstrated that the state presented any material, false or substantially misleading testimony that the prosecutor failed to correct, the defendant's claims relied on documents that were not in evidence at the probation revocation hearing, and there was no reasonable likelihood that any allegedly false testimony could have affected the trial court's judgment. Argued June 3—officially released September 30, 2025
Opinion Excerpt
************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor