Anthony A. v. Commissioner of Correction
Citations
- 339 Conn. 290
Syllabus
The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming, inter alia, that the Department of Correction violated his constitutional rights to procedural due process in assigning him a certain sex treatment need score and to substantive due process in classifying him as a sex offender, even though he never had committed or been convicted of a sex offense. The petitioner had been convicted of unlawful restraint in the first degree and failure to appear, and had been found to be in violation of probation. Prior to the petitioner's incarceration, the state entered a nolle prosequi as to a charge of sexual assault in a spousal relationship after the petitioner's wife, M, recanted her statement to the police that the peti- tioner had sexually assaulted her during the same incident that formed the basis for the charges of which he was convicted. Following his release from incarceration, the petitioner pleaded guilty to new charges stemming from another incident and was sentenced to concurrent terms of incarceration. Upon his return to prison, the petitioner was notified that a classification hearing would be held to determine whether, on the basis of the prior charge of sexual assault in a spousal relationship, he would be assigned a sex treatment need score of greater than 1 and that, in making its determination, the department would be relying on the police report of the petitioner's arrest and the petitioner's Connecti- cut rap sheets. Prior to the hearing, the department denied the petition- er's requests that, at his hearing, he be permitted to present live witness testimony and to be represented by counsel. During the hearing, the petitioner denied sexually assaulting M and submitted several docu- ments, including M's letter recanting her statement to the police, in support of his denial. Following the hearing, the hearing officer, T, notified the petitioner that she had assigned him a sex treatment need score of 3, that, in arriving at her decision, she reviewed not
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.