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. SCOTT REPETTI (AC 20168)
Schaller, Pellegrino and Dupont, Js. Argued September 14--officially released November 7, 2000 Counsel

Sebastian O. DeSantis, special public defender, with whom, on the brief, was Elizabeth A. Sabilia, for the appellant (defendant). Robert J. Scheinblum, assistant state's attorney, with whom were Sarah Steere, assistant state's attorney, and, on the brief, Kevin Kane, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Opinion

PELLEGRINO, J. The defendant, Scott Repetti, appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation after finding that he had violated its terms. The defendant claims on appeal that (1) the evidence presented did not support a finding that he violated the terms of his probation, (2) the court abused its discretion in terminating his probation and (3) the office of adult probation altered the terms of his probation in violation of his constitutional rights. We affirm the

judgment of the trial court. The following facts are relevant to this appeal. In April, 1997, the defendant was sentenced after having pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree in violation of General Statutes

Download State v. Repetti.pdf

Connecticut Law