Breton v. Comm'r of Corr., 330 Conn. 462

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court held that retroactive application of a 2013 amendment removing risk reduction credits from the calculation of a violent offender's initial parole eligibility date violated the federal Ex Post Facto Clause. The court concluded that the amendment created a sufficient risk of increased punishment by delaying parole eligibility, notwithstanding the discretionary nature of the credits and their potential forfeiture. The court reversed the habeas court's dismissal of Randy Breton's petition.

Holdings

1. Retroactive application of the 2013 amendment to General Statutes § 54-125a(b)(2) violated the ex post facto clause because it created a sufficient risk that Breton would serve more time before becoming eligible for initial parole consideration than under the law in effect when he committed his offenses.
2. The discretionary and revocable nature of risk-reduction credits did not make the ex post facto injury speculative or attenuated under the circumstances presented.
3. Advice received by Breton before his plea or sentencing that he would have to serve 85 percent of his sentence did not defeat his ex post facto claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether retroactive application of the 2013 amendment to General Statutes § 54-125a(b)(2), which eliminated risk-reduction credits from the calculation of a violent offender's initial parole-eligibility date, violated the ex post facto clause.
2. Whether the discretionary and revocable nature of risk-reduction credits made the risk of increased punishment too speculative or attenuated to establish an ex post facto violation.
3. Whether the petitioner's plea or sentencing advice that he would have to serve 85 percent of his sentence precluded his ex post facto claim.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded