State v. Parker
Citations
- 201 Conn. App. 435
Syllabus
The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation for his failure to pay restitution. The defendant had previously pleaded guilty to various offenses, including burglary and larceny, and was sentenced to probation. As a condition of his probation, the court ordered the defendant to make restitution in the amount of more than $18,000. Thereafter, he was charged with additional offenses and for violating certain terms of his probation, not involving the payment of restitution, to which he pleaded guilty. The trial court continued the defendant's probation. In the months that followed, the defendant paid a total of $850 in restitution. The state thereafter charged the defendant with violation of probation for failure to pay restitution. The trial court revoked the defendant's probation, having determined, on the basis of the defendant's prior statements made to the court at his first probation revocation hearing, that the defendant had the ability and the willingness to pay, and would make sufficient efforts to pay, but had failed to do so. On appeal, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the trial court erred in revoking his probation without first finding that his failure to pay the restitution was wilful. Held that the trial court erred in revoking the defendant's probation for failure to make restitution payments, as that court did not apply the correct legal standard and erred in making an implicit finding of wilfulness: as a prerequisite to incarceration for the failure to pay restitution, the trial court was required to make explicit findings on the record that a defendant had the ability to pay and, if so, whether the failure to pay was wilful, and, if not, whether the defen- dant made sufficient bona fide efforts legally to acquire the resources to pay; even if the trial court interpreted the defendant's statements made one and one-half years earlier at the first probation revocation hearing as an admission that he had the ab
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- remanding for new probation revocation hearing when trial court erred during evidentiary phase by failing to make necessary findings to satisfy element of offense of probation violation
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Bright; Prescott; Alexander
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
29 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court· 1976-02-24· cited 16,859×
- Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court· 1972-06-29· cited 10,835×
- North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court· 1970-11-23· cited 9,465×
- Gagnon v. ScarpelliSupreme Court· 1973-05-14· cited 5,755×
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
- Bearden v. GeorgiaSupreme Court· 1983-05-24· cited 1,941×
- Black v. RomanoSupreme Court· 1985-07-01· cited 620×
- Turner v. RogersSupreme Court· 2011-06-20· cited 409×
- Brown v. North CarolinaSupreme Court· 1986-11-03· cited 227×
- State v. DavisSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-03-21· cited 123×
- Moscone v. MansonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1981-07-28· cited 61×
- Del Valle v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 2011-12-15· cited 55×
- State v. PrestonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-04-08· cited 54×
- Sosin v. SosinSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-02-22· cited 54×
- State v. ParsonsNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1986-03-18· cited 45×
- Cruz v. MontanezSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-12-22· cited 44×
- Stephens v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1994-02-03· cited 43×
- State v. GraySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-07-15· cited 43×
- State v. CECIL J.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-06-02· cited 42×
- State v. HillSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-06-12· cited 33×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.