Background
Donyae Brown was serving probation under consecutive suspended sentences arising from two prior criminal cases. His probation conditions required him, among other things, to obey the law, submit to drug testing, and participate in substance-abuse evaluation and treatment. After Brown was arrested on new charges in November 2023, the state initiated a probation-violation proceeding based on that arrest.
On the morning of the January 23, 2025 revocation hearing, the state filed a substitute long form information that abandoned the new-arrest theory and instead alleged that Brown had missed numerous substance-abuse treatment sessions and tested positive for cocaine three times. Defense counsel sought a continuance, but acknowledged learning six days earlier that the state would pursue the technical violations and receiving the supporting materials at least four days before the hearing. The trial court denied the continuance, found the violations proven by a preponderance of the evidence, revoked probation, and ordered Brown to serve the remaining six and one-half years of his suspended sentences.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed, holding that Brown was not denied his due process right to fair notice. Although the substitute information was formally filed on the morning of the hearing, defense counsel’s statements established that Brown had actual notice six days earlier that the state would proceed on the technical violations. He also had an opportunity before the hearing to review the probation records supporting those allegations.
The court further held that Brown failed to make the required specific showing of prejudice. He did not identify additional investigation, witnesses, records, cross-examination, or a different defense strategy that more preparation time would have enabled. His general assertion that he lacked enough time to prepare therefore did not establish that the amendment surprised him or hampered his defense.
Key Takeaways
- Due process requires sufficiently advance notice of alleged probation violations to provide a reasonable opportunity to prepare, but the adequacy of notice depends on the totality of the circumstances.
- Actual notice of the state’s revised theory may satisfy due process even when the substitute information is not formally filed until the hearing date.
- A defendant challenging an amended probation-violation charge must identify specific prejudice; a bare assertion of inadequate preparation time is insufficient.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Connecticut courts will look beyond the filing date of a substitute information when evaluating fair notice in probation-revocation proceedings. Advance knowledge of the state’s revised allegations and access to supporting materials can establish adequate notice despite a same-day formal amendment.
It also underscores the importance of making a concrete record when seeking a continuance. Counsel should identify the investigation, evidence, witnesses, questioning, or strategic decisions that additional preparation time would permit, rather than relying only on a general claim of surprise or insufficient time.