Whenever any person has been convicted of an offense in any court in this state and such offense has been decriminalized subsequent to the date of such conviction, such person may file a petition with the Superior Court at the location in which such conviction was effected, or with the Superior Court at the location having custody of the records of such conviction if such conviction was in the Court of Common Pleas, Circuit Court, municipal court or by a trial justice, in the Superior Court where venue would currently exist for criminal prosecution, for an order of erasure, and the Superior Court shall immediately direct all police and court records and records of the state's or prosecuting attorney pertaining to such offense to be erased. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any police or court records, or the records of any state's attorney, with respect to any information containing more than one count, unless and until all counts in the information are entitled to erasure, except that electronic records or portions of electronic records released to the public that reference a charge that would otherwise be entitled to erasure under this section shall be erased in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(P.A. 83-6; P.A. 21-32, S. 4; P.A. 22-26, S. 36; 22-37, S. 40.)
History: P.A. 21-32 deleted references to records center of Judicial Department, added “in the Superior Court where venue would currently exist for criminal prosecution,”, added “immediately” re directing destruction of certain records, and made a technical change, effective January 1, 2023; P.A. 22-26 replaced “physically destroyed” with “erased” and added provision re section not applying to certain records containing more than one count until all counts in the information are entitled to erasure, effective January 1, 2023; P.A. 22-37 made technical changes, effective January 1, 2023.
Sec. 21a-279a reduced penalty for possessing less than one-half ounce of marijuana to a fine and therefore decriminalized said possession for purposes of this section. 315 C. 861. In the absence of a factual record, trial court directed to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether defendant possessed less than one-half ounce of marijuana and, thus, whether defendant's record of conviction is entitled to erasure under section. 323 C. 756. Section does not compel erasure of probation violation that was premised on now decriminalized offense of possession of less than one-half ounce of marijuana under Sec. 21a-279a; “such case” can refer only to the case in which the person has been convicted of an offense in any court in this state and such offense has been decriminalized subsequent to the date of such conviction; “such case” cannot refer to a probation violation, which is more akin to a civil proceeding. 332 C. 639.
An act that constitutes a crime under the Penal Code is an offense under section; decriminalization of an act under Sec. 53a-71(a)(1) in P.A. 07-143 entitled person with prior conviction for committing such act to erasure and destruction of records under this section, and repeal of Sec. 53a-71 in its entirety was not required for such erasure and destruction of records. 142 CA 21. Offense was not decriminalized when reclassified as a violation because actual legalization was necessary to constitute decriminalization under section. 147 CA 232; judgment reversed in part, see 315 C. 861.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 2013–2019 · leading case:
State v. Dudley, 212 A.3d 1268 (Conn. 2019).
State v. Dudley, 212 A.3d 1268 (Conn. 2019).
· cites it 23× “11-71 "decriminalized" the possession of less than one-half ounce of marijuana for purposes of this state's erasure statute, General Statutes § 54-142d. 2 In the present case, the defendant asks us to hold that § 54-142d also compels the erasure *1271 of a finding of a violation…”
State v. Menditto, 80 A.3d 923 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 28× “11-71) “decriminalized” the possession of less than one-half ounce of marijuana for purposes of General Statutes § 54-142d. 1 The defendant, Nicholas M.”
State v. Boswell, 62 A.3d 1158 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 27× “The defendant, Zachery Martin Boswell, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his petition for destruction of records, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-142d, of his conviction of sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev.”
State v. Brito, 154 A.3d 535 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 2× “11-71 of the 2011 Public Acts, codified as General Statutes § 21a-279a, 21 decriminalized the possession of less than one-half ounce of marijuana for purposes of General Statutes § 54-142d ; see State v.”
State v. Spielberg, 150 A.3d 1118 (Conn. 2016).
· cites it 24× “11-71); the trial court improperly concluded that he was not entitled to erasure of the records of this conviction pursuant to General Statutes § 54-142d. 2 Because this court's decision in State v.”
State v. Spielberg (Conn. App. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 21× “5 General Statutes § 54-142d provides in relevant part: ‘‘Whenever any person has been convicted of an offense in any court in this state and such offense has been decriminalized subsequent to the date of such conviction, such person may file a petition with the [S]uperior…”
State v. Menditto (Conn. 2015).
· cites it 13× “General Stat- utes § 54-142d. In 2011, the legislature enacted No.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.