Opinion
(SC 15913)
Argued January 20, 1999
Officially released January 25, 1999
January 25, 1999, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion, is the operative date for all substantive purposes.
Information charging the defendant with violation of probation, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Danbury, geographical area number three, and tried to the court, Moraghan, J.; judgment of guilty revoking the order of probation and sentencing the defendant to the unexpired term of the sentence imposed on his underlying criminal conviction, from which the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, Schaller, Dupont and Daly, Js., which affirmed the trial court's judgment, and the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Reversed; further proceedings.
Nancy Burton, for the appellant (defendant).
Eileen McCarthy Geel, deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom were Robert C. Brunetti, assistant state's attorney, and, on the brief, Walter D. Flanagan, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
This is a certified appeal; State v. Mourning, 244 Conn. 924, 714 A.2d 11 (1998); from the judgment of the Appellate Court; State v. Mourning, 47 Conn. App. 916, 703 A.2d 1194 (1997); affirming the trial court's judgment, dated November 16, 1996, finding the defendant in violation of probation and imposing the previously suspended three year sentence of incarceration. The defendant has, therefore, been incarcerated since that date. We have determined, for reasons that will appear in a full opinion to be released subsequently, that the dispositional phase of the probation revocation proceeding was flawed and that, therefore, that aspect of the judgment must be reversed and a new dispositional hearing held. See State v. Strickland, 243 Conn. 339, 703 A.2d 109 (1997). In order to give full effect to our determination, however, it is necessary that the defendant's incarceration be terminated immediately, pending the new dispositional hearing.
We assume, also, that, if the defendant still wishes to have a psychological evaluation for purposes of the new hearing, he will be given an opportunity to do so.