Connecticut Supreme Court delivers hopeful verdict

Anthony A. v. Department of Correction

By Larry . . . This is a lingering case that has gone on for several years. NARSOL has decided to use fewer quotes from the court’s opinion than we normally do because some of the language is very graphic in terms of the sexual acts alleged. In 2017, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court, which had concluded that petitioner Anthony A. had a protected liberty interest in not being incorrectly classified as a sex offender for purposes of determining his housing, security, and treatment needs by the Department of Correction. See Anthony A. v. Commissioner of Correction, 326 Conn. 668, 166 A.3d 614 (2017). Despite the 2017 decision from the state’s highest court, the Connecticut Department of Correction decided to classify him as a sexual offender. The present decision is a result of a habeas petition filed by Anthony A., hereinafter referred to as the petitioner or he where appropriate.

Underlying Sexual Allegations

Based on the facts written in the court’s opinion, the petitioner was arrested and charged with several offenses, including sexual assault in a spousal relationship in connection with an incident that occurred overnight from July 18-19, 2011. Petitioner’s former wife, M., informed the police that she and the petitioner had been drinking and smoking crack cocaine, which caused the petitioner to become paranoid and act in a delusional manner. After repeatedly accusing M. of having an affair, the petitioner made her take off her clothing and lie on her back, whereupon he digitally penetrated her. When the petitioner continued to accuse her of having an affair, M, out of annoyance, lied to the petitioner and stated she was having an affair with one of his friends. This caused the petitioner to become violent and to pour soda on M.

The petitioner provided a statement to the police where he admitted getting high on cocaine and questioning M. about whether she was having an affair. He also stated that, throughout the night, as he lay in bed next to M., she said no, that she was not in the mood, and he would stop for a while before trying again. He did this throughout the night, and M. finally threw her phone at him. The petitioner stated that he then took the phone and snapped it in half.

Accuser Subsequently Recanted Allegations

In a notarized letter dated August 17, 2011, M recanted, stating that she did not wish to pursue any charges, that the police report was inaccurate, and that the petitioner never sexually assaulted her. M. explained that she and the petitioner are very sexually active and that any marks on her body that evening came from consensual sexual activity.

On February 21, 2012, the prosecutor informed the trial court that she had met with M., who informed her that she was abusing substances on the night in question, that she no longer recalled her conversation with the police, and that she now believed that something happened different from the sexual assault that was alleged. The prosecutor informed the court that M. also stated that, when she sobered up, she saw what really happened. She stated that she slipped and hit her head in the bathroom which caused her to have a seizure, and sometimes seizures make her believe things that are not actually true.

Guilty Plea and Classification

The state entered a nolle prosequi on the charge of sexual assault in a spousal relationship. The petitioner thereafter pleaded guilty to unlawful restraint in the first degree, failure to appear, and violation of probation, for which he was sentenced to an effective term of three years and six months of incarceration.

Despite the fact that there was no conviction for a sexual offense, the Department of Correction decided with virtually no due process that the petitioner had committed the sexual offense that was dropped. Since the due process clause prohibits the government from depriving a person of certain liberty interests except pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures, the case was remanded to the habeas court for a determination of whether the Department of Correction had afforded the petitioner the process he was due. The petitioner asserted that the habeas court incorrectly determined that the Commissioner of Correction did not violate his right to procedural due process in classifying him as a sex offender. He also claimed that the habeas court incorrectly determined that this classification did not violate his right to substantive due process nor his right not to be punished.

The Connecticut Supreme Court concluded that the petitioner was not afforded the procedural protections he was due prior to being classified as a sex offender and, therefore, that his classification violated his right to procedural due process under both the federal constitution and the state constitution. They rejected the substantive due process claim. The Court states as follows: “Although the petitioner was afforded some of the procedural protections required by Wolff, it is clear that he was not provided all of them. In particular, he was not provided (1) an opportunity to call witnesses in his defense, (2) adequate notice of the information to be relied on in determining his classification, (3) and an impartial decision maker to rule on his appeal.”

NARSOL is excited about this case and believes it may help others who have been classified inappropriately without adequate due process.

 

image_pdfimage_print
Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

One Thought to “Connecticut Supreme Court delivers hopeful verdict”

Leave a Comment

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone and language of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Refrain from comments containing references to religion unless it clearly relates to the post being commented on.
  • Do not post in all caps.
  • We will generally not allow links; the moderator may consider the value of a link.
  • We will not post lengthy comments.
  • Please don not go into details about your story; post these on our Tales from the Registry.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites.
  • Please do not solicit funds.
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them. It will not be displayed on the site.

  1. Tim in WI

    This case is hopeful in particular with it’s emphasis on due process, “prior to being classified as a sex offender.” However we know this citizen was not convicted of an offense(s) with the duty to registration attached to them.
    Yet state’s DPS attached it to him anyway. In other words “the people” acted completely without the evidence necessary to proceed in action! The word for such can be found in law. The word is caprice. And when the internal review was demanded by the defendant the reviewer sided with their bosses and claimed legitimacy. The word for this is party to caprice. This is real evidence of the ” something else afoot ” mentioned in the 9th circuit in the tortured history of Alaska v. (Doe). It is the very same reason why I’ve demanded FTR trial by jury instead of submitting to registration demands. There IMO can never be in the true interest of the people to ignore basic constitutional limitations the people set upon Congress. But that is where the Madison Avenue comes into play via MSM. Those folks can sell the people anything.