Reed v. Commissioner of Correction

Syllabus

The petitioner appealed from the judgment of the habeas court denying her amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the application to her of an administrative directive amended by the respon- dent, the Commissioner of Correction, that changed the calculation of credit that inmates may earn under the risk reduction earned credit program established by statute (§ 18-98e) violated the ex post facto clause of the United States constitution. Held that the petitioner could not prevail on her claim that the application to her of the administrative directive violated the ex post facto clause of the United States constitu- tion as, pursuant to Rios v. Commissioner of Correction (224 Conn. App. 350), the administrative directive in question did not constitute a law within the meaning of the ex post facto clause and, thus, she could not establish an ex post facto violation. Argued January 3—officially released May 7, 2024