STATE v. KEVIN BOYLE, SC 17966

Judicial District of New Britain

 

      Criminal; Whether Trial Court Abused its Discretion In Modifying Conditions of Defendant's Probation to Include Sex Offender Evaluation and Any Recommended Treatment.  In 2005, the defendant entered into a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.  The trial court sentenced him to a period of incarceration plus eighteen months of probation.  In May of 2006, the defendant began serving that probationary period, and in July of 2006, the office of adult probation moved to modify the conditions of his probation.  The probation officer requested that the defendant be required to participate in a sex offender evaluation and any recommended sex offender treatment.  This request was based on the probation officer's discovery that the defendant was convicted of sexual assault in 1997, that he was on the sex offender registry and that a parole board evaluation indicated that his risk of recidivism for sexual assault was high and his level of dangerousness was severe.  At the hearing on the motion to modify, the probation officer testified that it is the policy of the office of adult probation to request that a probationer abide by sex offender conditions of probation when the probationer has a prior sexual offense conviction and is still on the sex offender registry.  The probation officer further testified that he believed that the added condition of probation was necessary because the use of alcohol was a factor in the sexual assault case.  The trial court granted the motion, and the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court.  On appeal, he argued that the additional condition of probation requiring him to participate in a sex offender evaluation and any recommended treatment was improper because it was not related to his rehabilitation for the crime of operating under the influence.  The Appellate Court (102 Conn. App. 507) agreed and reversed the trial court's ruling.  It found that there was no logical nexus between the added condition of probation and the underlying offense of operating under the influence for which the defendant was serving probation.  The state appeals.