Appeal filed in violation of probation sentence given to Norwich businessman Zane Megos

Attorney says judge disregarded sworn testimony and made ‘erroneous’ rulings

The attorney for Norwich businessman Zane Megos has filed a strongly worded 23-page appeal of Megos’ five-year prison sentence for violation of probation, saying the Superior Court judge disregarded sworn testimony by Megos and witnesses, made “clearly erroneous” rulings and imposed an “excessive sentence.”

Megos, 59, was sentenced Feb. 25 to five years in prison for violating his probation on six previous larceny charges following a two-day hearing in New London Superior Court before Judge Omar Williams.

He was arrested last August on charges of attempted third-degree larceny, third-degree forgery and criminal impersonation stemming from taking a deposit in November 2014 for an apartment at 467 N. Main St. that was condemned.

Williams found no evidence for the forgery charge, but agreed with the prosecutor that there was a “preponderance of evidence” that he violated probation on the other two charges.

At the time of the arrest, Megos was on a three-year probation on six previous larceny charges for taking deposits for apartments and houses that never became available to the prospective tenants or buyers.

New London attorney Kenneth Leary argued in Megos’ appeal of the sentence to state Appellate Court that Williams disregarded Megos’ testimony and testimony of three witnesses that Megos never intended to steal the deposit money, but had every intention to rent the apartment legitimately.

Leary repeated arguments made

during the hearing alleging that Norwich building officials were biased against Megos and intentionally delayed inspections and added required work to the renovations.

Leary argued that Megos returned the deposit when the prospective tenant asked for her money back. He said he never tried to impersonate business partner Bishop Taylor, who owned the building at the time.

Taylor had provided Megos with pre-signed receipts to give to the prospective tenant, but Megos denied the woman’s claim that he pretended to be Taylor.

“How could the intent to permanently retain a security deposit by a landlord be proven when he returned the deposit to the prospective tenant as soon as she asked for it and within two weeks of receiving it?” Leary wrote in the appeal.

He also claimed Williams made a “harmful error” when he overruled Leary’s objection to testimony that the new attempted larceny charge represented a “common scheme” related to the previous conviction.

Leary argued the repeated references to the past cases amounted to “a strange form of double jeopardy.”

The state’s attorney’s reply brief in the appeal is due Aug. 15.