State v. Thorp
In State v. Thorp, 57 Conn. App. 112, 117, 747 A.2d 537, cert. denied, 253 Conn. 913, 754 A.2d 162 (2000), the Court held that because the sentencing court could have imposed sex offender treatment under 53a-30 (a), and because such treatment was not inconsistent with that court's conditions of no contact with the victim and substance abuse evaluation and treatment, the actions of the office of adult probation were not improper.
Although the defendant in Thorp received a hearing before the conditions were added, we noted that due process did not require a hearing. Id., 119.