Rios v. Commissioner of Correction

Citations

• 224 Conn. App. 350

Syllabus

The petitioner, who had been convicted of several crimes committed in 2013, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the retroactive application to him of an amended administrative directive of the respon- dent, the Commissioner of Correction, violated the ex post facto clause of the federal constitution. The petitioner claimed that the amendment's change in the calculation of risk reduction credit he could earn toward completion of his sentence resulted in a longer period of incarceration for him and a postponement of his parole eligibility date to a time later than had originally been projected. Under the statutorily (§ 18-98e) created risk reduction earned credits program, the respondent had the sole discretion to award up to five days of risk reduction credit per month toward the completion of eligible inmates' sentences. Under the administrative directive in effect in 2013, the petitioner had been earning five days of risk reduction credit per month. In 2016, when the respon- dent amended the 2013 administrative directive to align the award of risk reduction credit with inmates' overall risk classification levels, the petitioner began earning risk reduction credit at a rate of three days per month due to his risk classification. The petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming, inter alia, that he had earned approxi- mately 104 fewer risk reduction credits from the time that the 2016 administrative directive was applied to him until the time of the habeas proceedings than he would have earned under the 2013 administrative directive. The respondent filed a motion to dismiss the habeas petition, arguing that, pursuant to the applicable rule of practice (§ 23-29 (1)), the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the habeas petition and, alternatively, that, pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29 (2), the peti- tioner had failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The habeas court granted the petitioner's motion for summary judgment,