STATE v. JUSTIN T. KEVALIS, SC 19120

Judicial District of Fairfield

     Criminal; Whether Court Properly Determined that the Defendant had not Successfully Completed Accelerated Rehabilitation When, During the Probationary Period, He was Convicted of Charges Predicated on Conduct Committed Prior to his Admission Into the Program.  The defendant was charged with several criminal offenses and he applied pursuant to General Statutes § 54-56e for admission into the accelerated rehabilitation program.  The trial court granted the application and, as a result, the prosecution of the defendant’s case was suspended and he was placed on accelerated rehabilitation probation subject to conditions imposed by the court.  Subsequently, after obtaining a certificate from his probation officer declaring that he had successfully completed his probation, the defendant sought that the charges pending against him be dismissed.  The state objected, arguing that the defendant had not successfully completed his accelerated rehabilitation probation because, during the probationary period, he had been convicted of three unrelated criminal charges.  The defendant argued that, because the conduct underlying the convictions occurred before he was placed on accelerated rehabilitation probation, the convictions could not be a basis for finding that he failed to successfully complete the probation.  The court disagreed and denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges.  It explained that the legislative purpose behind § 54-56e is to provide a defendant with the opportunity to keep his criminal record clean after an arrest.  That purpose, the court stated, could not be satisfied where a defendant, while on accelerated rehabilitation probation, is convicted of a crime.  Thus, it opined that any conviction, regardless of whether it is based on conduct occurring before or after being placed on accelerated rehabilitation probation, disqualifies a defendant from obtaining a dismissal of the charges based on satisfactory completion of the program.  This is the defendant’s appeal from the judgment denying his motion to dismiss the charges pending against him.