Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. EDWARD HEDMAN (AC 19834)
Mihalakos, Zarella and Dupont, Js. Argued November 30, 2000--officially released March 20, 2001 Counsel

Martin Zeldis, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Susann E. Gill, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Jonathan C. Benedict, state's attorney, and Robert Brennan, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Opinion

DUPONT, J. After a hearing in this revocation of probation case, the court found the defendant, Edward Hedman, in violation of his probation, revoked it and sentenced him to the unserved remainder of the term of his original sentence. The court found that the defendant had violated the condition of probation that required him to obtain alcohol abuse testing, treatment and counseling.1 The sole issue on appeal is whether the right of allocu-

tion as prescribed by Practice Book

Download State v. Hedman.pdf

Connecticut Law