Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-30
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-30
(1969, P.A. 828, S. 30; 1971, P.A. 781, S. 1; P.A. 73-231; P.A. 78-188, S. 4, 8; P.A. 79-585, S. 9, 15; P.A. 82-298, S. 8; P.A. 86-403, S. 88, 132; P.A. 89-383, S. 4, 16; 89-390, S. 19, 37; P.A. 90-213, S. 4, 56; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 91-9, S. 4, 10; P.A. 93-340, S. 13, 19; P.A. 94-128, S. 1, 3; P.A. 95-142, S. 3; P.A. 97-199, S. 3; June 18 Sp. Sess. P.A. 97-11, S. 62, 65; P.A. 99-183, S. 12, 13; P.A. 00-72, S. 5, 12; 00-141, S. 1; P.A. 01-84, S. 15, 26; P.A. 02-132, S. 31; P.A. 03-208, S. 1; P.A. 05-288, S. 182; P.A. 06-187, S. 29; 06-196, S. 292; P.A. 11-51, S. 134; P.A. 12-5, S. 18; P.A. 17-99, S. 19; 17-111, S. 2.)
Cited. 170 Conn. 128; 204 Conn. 52; 207 C. 152; 222 Conn. 299; 225 Conn. 46; 240 C. 639. Trial court's imposition of restitution as additional condition of probation was not punitive in nature and therefore did not affect defendant's sentence; section does not deprive trial court of jurisdiction to impose a condition of probation subsequent to initial sentencing and prior to defendant's commencement of probation period. 283 C. 735. Section not applicable to trial court's corrected order of probation because order was a clarification, not a modification, of conditions of probation previously imposed on defendant. 294 C. 516. Cited. 9 Conn.App. 686; 12 CA 338; 14 CA 272; 19 CA 304; 22 CA 199; Id., 449; 32 Conn.App. 1; 33 CA 432; 34 CA 1; 39 CA 722; 45 Conn.App. 722. Trial court's modification of defendant's probation to include sex offender evaluation and treatment was proper; Office of Adult Probation had authority under statute to add an additional condition of probation; sexual offender treatment is clearly enumerated in Subsec. (a) and could have been imposed by sentencing court; and at any time during period of probation, after hearing and for good cause shown, court may modify or enlarge conditions of probation pursuant to Subsec. (c). 57 CA 112. Failure to deliver a written copy of conditions of probation did not excuse subsequent probation violation and did not invalidate resulting probation revocation. 58 Conn.App. 153. Condition required by Office of Adult Probation was inconsistent with those required by court. 69 CA 421; judgment reversed, see 268 C. 174. Under section, office had authority to include a curfew restriction on defendant at the start of his probationary period without a court hearing and a showing of good cause, and such a condition was not inconsistent with the purposes of probation. 75 CA 643. List set forth in section meant to be illustrative, and not exhaustive. 83 CA 142. Cited. 35 CS 536. Requiring defendant to sell his gun collection was a condition reasonably related to his rehabilitation. Id., 570. Cited. 41 Conn.Supp. 229; 42 CS 574. Subsec. (a): Cited. 169 C. 223; 196 Conn. 305; 229 Conn. 285. Where, pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant pleads guilty to sexual assault in fourth degree in violation of Sec. 53a-73a and public indecency in violation of Sec. 53a-186, trial court acted within its discretion in permitting Office of Adult Probation to notify members of defendant's community. 250 C. 280. Subdiv. (4): Since damage to an unoccupied house was the "fruit" of the collective criminal trespass in which the youthful offender had participated and of which he was convicted, the damage had a nexus to the offense and accordingly the order of restitution was reasonably related to the consequence of the youth's criminal trespass and well within the discretion of the trial court even though the youth had not personally profited from the trespass or caused any physical damage to the property. 301 C. 684. Cited. 3 CA 410; 7 CA 326; 42 CA 460; 45 Conn.App. 722. Trial court's order of sexual offender treatment was authorized because section grants the court broad authority to impose any other conditions reasonably related to rehabilitation. 57 CA 743. Court's order that defendant pay veterinary and impoundment bills incurred from defendant's failure to restrain an animal from doing injury to another animal in violation of Sec. 53-247(a) was proper because such bills met statutory requirement of "fruits" for which the court may order restitution and such order did not violate "due process" because court was justified in concluding that defendant had means of earning income during the period set for restitution. 84 CA 542. Trial court's order of specialized sex offender treatment as condition of probation was authorized under Subdiv. (17) re "other conditions reasonably related to" rehabilitation and was not prohibited due to omission from Subdiv. (12) which enumerated certain crimes meriting such treatment. 95 CA 686. Court's termination of defendant's status in accelerated rehabilitation program cannot rest solely on undisposed charge of a crime identical to the underlying charge for which defendant seeks dismissal. 98 CA 111. Subdiv. (17): In order for a condition of probation to be "reasonably related to the defendant's rehabilitation" pursuant to Subdiv., there must be a nexus between the condition of probation and the charge for which defendant is serving probation. 102 CA 507. Although trial court specifically ordered restitution, it did not find that any damage was caused to the victim by defendant or that defendant profited from the criminal activity, nor was any rehabilitative purpose cited, so there is no basis for the court's order. 118 CA 236; judgment reversed, see 301 Conn. 684. Cited. 35 CS 675; 37 Conn.Supp. 853; 39 CS 504. Defendant found to have complied with terms of his accelerated rehabilitation program which required that he refrain from violating any criminal laws of the United States, this state or any other state, notwithstanding fact that defendant pled guilty to criminal charges stemming from separate events that occurred after date that he applied for entry into accelerated rehabilitation but prior to date that he was actually accepted into program. 50 CS 383. Subsec. (b): Cited. 229 Conn. 285. Cited. 3 Conn.App. 410; 33 CA 103; 42 CA 768. Office's requirement that, as part of sex offender treatment, defendant refrain from use of alcohol is consistent with terms ordered by the court and therefore properly imposed by office. 60 CA 614. Probation officer could not enter into agreement with defendant that would have been in direct contradiction to a condition of probation imposed by sentencing court. 86 CA 657. Cited. 37 Conn.Supp. 853. Subsec. (c): Special condition on probation administration properly imposed 1 year after sentencing in exercise of court's discretion. 207 Conn. 152. Once defendant is discharged from probation, the conditions of his probation are no longer subject to modification or enlargement. 287 C. 478. Cited. 33 Conn.App. 103; 37 Conn.App. 72; 42 Conn.App. 768. Probation officer did not have authority to modify original conditions of probation ordered by sentencing court. 86 Conn.App. 657. Statute mandates that a court conduct a hearing related to any decision to modify probation and the hearing must be the forum in which the court explores the issue of whether good cause exists at the time the court is considering modifying the terms of the probation; the court may not modify probation unless there is a showing of good cause. 107 CA 800; judgment reversed, see 294 Conn. 516. When the state enters into a plea agreement that includes a period of probation, both defendant and the state do so with the understanding that the terms of probation may be modified or enlarged in accordance with law, and that such a modification might include a reduction. 147 CA 465.