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. WILLIE SHANNON (AC 18741)
Lavery, C. J., and Schaller and Cretella, Js. Argued October 26, 2000--officially released January 30, 2001 Counsel

Sarah F. Summons, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Toni M. Smith-Rosario, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John M. Bailey, chief state's attorney, Richard L. Palombo, Jr., supervisory assistant state's attorney, and Jeffrey Lee, deputy assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The defendant, Willie Shannon, appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation and committing him to the custody of the commissioner of correction to serve the suspended portion of sentences imposed on September 13, 1991, and November 6, 1996. The defendant claims that the court improperly found that (1) he violated the terms of his probation on the basis of evidence that was neither reliable nor probative and (2) he could no longer benefit

from probation in violation of his due process rights.1 We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. On September 13, 1991, the defendant was convicted of possession of narcotics and criminal impersonation and sentenced to twelve years imprisonment, execution suspended after seven years, with three years probation. The term of probation commenced on July 11, 1996. On November 6, 1996, the defendant was convicted of possession of narcotics and sentenced to three years, execution suspended, with three years probation commencing on the same day. The terms of the defendant's probation expressly provided: ``Do not violate any criminal laws of the United States, this state or any other state.'' On August 12, 1997, the defendant was arrested for a narcotics offense occurring on February 25, 1997. On June 4, 1998, the court held a violation of probation hearing. At the probation revocation hearing, the state called to the witness stand a number of witnesses. The first witness was Michele Emery, the defendant's probation officer, who had issued warrants for probation violation after the August, 1997 arrest. She testified on crossexamination that she had had no problems with the defendant prior to his arrest. The state then called to the witness stand a series of law enforcement witnesses to testify to the events that transpired on February 25, 1997. Edwin Kohl, a detective with the New Haven police department working undercover on a counternarcotics operation, testified that he purchased crack cocaine from an individual whom he later identified as the defendant. A second officer from the New Haven police department, Richard Pelletier, who had videotaped the operation, identified the defendant as the individual whom he videotaped selling cocaine to Kohl. Pelletier also testified to first-hand observations of a third police officer purchasing cocaine from the defendant. Joel Milznoff, a toxicology specialist with the department of public health, testified that he had positively identified the substance delivered to him by the police department as crack cocaine. Finally, another witness to the transaction, Jeffrey Lewis, reviewed the videotape footage and identified himself as one party recorded on the videotape, but could not identify the defendant as the individual selling cocaine on the videotape. Lewis further testified that he had known the defendant for a number of years and never knew the defendant to wear a hood like the one worn by the individual identified by the other witnesses as the defendant on the videotape footage. On June 8, 1998, the court concluded that the defendant had violated the terms of his probation and sentenced him to serve the remaining period of his five year sentence to run concurrently with the three year term for the second conviction.2 The defendant appeals

from the judgment finding him in violation of the terms of his probation. ``[A] probation revocation hearing has two distinct components. . . . The trial court must first conduct an adversarial evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant has in fact violated a condition of probation. . . . General Statutes

Download State v. Shannon.pdf

Connecticut Law