October 16, 2017
charging the defendant with violation of probation, brought
to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New London,
where the matter was tried to the court, Williams, J.;
judgment revoking the defendant's probation, from which
the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.
B. Rasile, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).
J. Smith, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom,
on the brief, was Michael L. Regan, state's attorney, for
the appellee (state).
Keller, Elgo and Bear, Js.
defendant, Kason U. Esquilin, appeals from the judgment of
the trial court revoking his probation pursuant to General
Statutes § 53a-32 and imposing a four year prison
sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court
deprived him of his right to due process by admitting into
evidence reports of the results of drug tests performed on
urine samples collected from the defendant, without requiring
the state to introduce such results through the testimony of
the analysts who performed the actual testing. We conclude,
in accordance with State v. Polanco, 165
Conn.App. 563, 571, 140 A.3d 230, cert. denied, 322 Conn.
906, 139 A.3d 708 (2016), that this claim was not preserved
and that the record is inadequate to review it pursuant to
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40,
567 A.2d 823 (1989). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of
the trial court.
following facts and procedural history are relevant to our
resolution of the defendant's appeal. On April 28, 2008,
the defendant was convicted of the underlying offense of the
sale of hallucinogens/narcotics in violation of General
Statutes § 21a-277 (a). On June 17, 2008, he was
sentenced to ten years incarceration, execution suspended
after two years, and three years of probation. The defendant
was released from incarceration on September 10, 2010, and
his probationary period began.
March 21, 2012, the defendant was convicted of violating his
probation pursuant to § 53a-32. He was sentenced to
eight years incarceration, execution suspended after two
years, and three years of probation. The terms of his
probation, in addition to the standard conditions, required
as special conditions, that the defendant (1) obey all
federal and state laws, (2) not possess weapons, (3) submit
to psychological evaluation and treatment, (4) take
medications as prescribed, (5) submit to substance abuse
evaluation and treatment, (6) not use or possess drugs and
alcohol, (7) submit to random urine and alcohol sensor
testing, (8) not associate with drug dealers, users, and gang
members, (9) secure full time employment, and (10) pass a
general education development course. On August 5, 2013, the
defendant, after he reviewed the conditions of probation,
acknowledged that he understood the conditions and would
follow them. On August 27, 2013, the defendant again was
released from incarceration and his probationary period
January 29, 2014, an arrest warrant for the defendant was
issued charging him with a violation of probation on the
grounds that the defendant violated the following standard
conditions of his probation: (1) ‘‘[d]o not
violate any criminal law of the United States, this state or
any other state or territory'' and (2)
‘‘[s]ubmit to any medical and/or psychological
examination, urinalysis, alcohol and/or drug testing, and/or
counseling sessions required by the [c]ourt or the
[p]robation [o]fficer.'' The defendant also was
charged with failing to comply with the following special
conditions of his probation: (1) submit to substance abuse
evaluation and treatment, (2) do not use or possess drugs or
alcohol, (3) submit to random urine and alcohol sensor
testing, (4) do not associate with drug dealers, users, or
gang members, and (5) obey all federal and state laws. The
defendant denied that he committed any violations and a
probation revocation hearing was held on April 2, 2015.
hearing evidence and argument, the court found that the state
had proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
defendant had violated his probation. The court found,
relevant part: ‘‘[Probation] Officer [Robert]
Amanti of the Office of Adult Probation spoke with [the
defendant] about the conditions of his probation, including
his requirement that he successfully complete treatment and
remain free of any illicit substance. . . . [The defendant]
acknowledged those conditions. . . . [O]n August 15, 2013,
the [defendant] was confronted about his substance abuse. . .
. [The defendant] indicated he was proud of getting
and was referred for treatment at [the Southeastern Council
on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (rehabilitation facility)].
. . . [The defendant], while on probation with the previously
noted conditions, rendered several dirty urines on at least
seven occasions while on probation. One of the urines dated
[August 27, 2013, ] was positive for [tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC)] with a level of 757. The [defendant] did not
successfully complete treatment at [the rehabilitation
facility] and was unsuccessfully discharged. The court finds
that he was then rereferred to [the rehabilitation facility]
by probation, and again was unsuccessfully discharged. . . .
elected to continue working with [the defendant] toward its
intended goal of rehabilitation and did not submit a warrant
for violation of probation, which would be a second violation
of probation . . . [probation] continued to work with the
[defendant] even after seven positive urines; and that the
[defendant] eventually was arrested on [January 20, 2014]. .
. . [The defendant's] conduct included grabbing the hair
of a pregnant victim, pulling out at least one of her braids.
. . . The [defendant] struck this pregnant female in the face
with an open hand, causing pain. . . . [The defendant]
attempted to run away from the police and struggled with
those police officers. [The defendant committed the] crimes of
breach of peace, assault in the third degree on a pregnant
victim, [and] interfering with an officer . . . [and
demonstrated an] inability to successfully complete treatment
or to remain sober . . . . [Therefore] . . . the state . . .
met its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence,
and [proved that the defendant] violated conditions of his
probation for the aforementioned conduct.''
(Footnotes added.) After the conclusion of the dispositional
phase, the court revoked the defendant's probation and
sentenced him to four years of incarceration. This appeal
defendant's sole claim is that the court deprived him of
his right to due process by admitting into evidence the
reports of the results of drug tests performed on his urine
samples without requiring the state to introduce such results
through the testimony of the analysts who performed the
following additional facts are relevant to the disposition of
this appeal. At the defendant's probation revocation
hearing, the state sought to present testimony from Amanti
about the results of the drug tests performed on the
defendant's urine and to introduce the reports of such
results into evidence as an exhibit. The drug tests were
performed on samples of the defendant's urine collected
by both probation and the rehabilitation facility between
August, 2013, and December, 2013. These samples were sent to
out-of-state laboratories to be analyzed and the laboratories
would fax reports of the results to the Office of Probation.
The analysts who performed the drug tests and authored the
reports of the drug tests were not present to testify at the
defendant's probation revocation hearing. ...