Robert Colvin v. Warden, State Prison (2013)

HABEAS TRIAL RE VIDEO CONFERENCE EXCERPT

*EXCERPT*

THE COURT:  I am going to read this decision into the record and I'll sign it and it will become the Court's Memorandum of Decision in this case.

The petitioner, Robert Colvin, has brought this petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the Department of Correction, hereinafter DOC, has misclassified him as a sexual offender and is requiring him to take sex offender treatment.   The petitioner does not deny that he has a delinquency adjudication for the crime of sexual assault in the first degree as a juvenile.   The petitioner asked this Court for two things.   First, to have DOC remove any and all juvenile information from his adult file and second, to order the Department of Correction, DOC, to return his classification to a level 1. For the reasons that follow this petition is denied.   The Court assumes without deciding that the petitioner has a liberty interest in being labeled a sex offender.   And the cite for that is Thomas v. Warden, 49 Conn.Sup. 416, 2005 case.   In Thomas the Court determined that because the petitioner was acquitted of a sexual offense he had a liberty interest in not being labeled a sex offender.   This case is different.   Here the petitioner was not only adjudicated a sexual offender, but also DOC has reduced his score from a score of 3 to a score of 1. Based on the testimony from Bryan Griggs, a score of 1 means the petitioner is no longer classified as a sex offender.   Specifically, according to the testimony from Mr. Griggs, the score of 1 means no sexual misconduct has occurred inside or outside of the prison.   Thus the petitioner's request to have DOC change his classification back to a score of 1 is moot because DOC has already changed his classification back to a score of 1.

With respect to the petitioner's second concern of having DOC remove any and all juvenile information this Court denies that claim.   DOC became aware of the petitioner's sexual adjudication from a Pre–Sentence Investigation report from the early 1980s.   DOC was and is properly in possession of that information and properly used that information pursuant to General Statute 46b–124(d).  That statute provides for an exception to the confidentiality of juvenile records.   Under this statute if someone has a juvenile record and is later convicted in a criminal court of a separate offense, DOC may receive the juvenile records in order to make an appropriate assessment regarding classification and placement.   That appears to be what happened in this case.   DOC properly used the information from the petitioner's juvenile record to determine the petitioner's classification.   According to Mr. Griggs there is the possibility that the petitioner's level could change or the petitioner's score could change based on this information;  however, because the DOC is properly in receipt of this information the Court will not order them to ignore it.   The Court hopes that DOC uses the information appropriately as it appears they have to this point, given that DOC has reviewed and reflected upon the petitioner's score and changed his score from a 3 back down to a 1.

For all the foregoing reasons the petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

Signed

Hon. Raheem Mullins

Mullins, Raheem, J.