State v. Gonzalez
Citations
- 214 Conn. App. 511
Syllabus
The defendant, who had been convicted, on a plea of guilty, of the crimes of assault in the first degree and carrying a pistol without a permit, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant was sentenced in 2017 to a term of incarceration followed by a period of special parole. Subsequently, the legislature enacted No. 18-63, § 2, of the 2018 Public Acts (P.A. 18-63), which repealed and replaced subsection (b) of the special parole statute ((Rev. to 2017) § 54-125e), to require a trial court, when sentencing a person, to determine, based on various factors, whether a period of special parole was necessary to ensure public safety. The defendant alleged in his motion to correct an illegal sentence that P.A. 18-63 applied retroactively to his sentence of special parole and that the court should vacate that part of his sentence and hold a new sentencing hearing. The court denied the defendant's motion, concluding that P.A. 18-63 did not apply retroactively. On the defendant's appeal to this court, held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that § 2 of P.A. 18-63 was intended to apply retroactively to his sentence of special parole on the basis that § 54-125e is procedural in nature rather than substantive: this court concluded that the defendant's claim was governed by its decision in State v. Omar (209 Conn. App. 283), in which it determined that, because P.A. 18-63 repealed and replaced the imposition of a form of punishment for a criminal conviction, the plain meaning analysis set forth in State v. Bischoff (337 Conn. 739) controlled and the criminal savings statutes (§§ 54-194 and 1-1 (t)) applied to P.A. 18-63, and, having considered the plain language of § 2 of P.A. 18-63, determined that the act clearly and unambiguously prohibited retroactive application; moreover, this court determined in Omar that, in the absence of a clear and unequivocal expression of legislative inten
Judges: Moll; Cradle; Eveleigh
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Aviles v. BarnhillConnecticut Appellate Court· 2023-01-31· cited 2×
- State v. Dayvid J.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2024-09-03· cited 2×
- State v. ArdizzoneConnecticut Appellate Court· 2025-01-21· cited 2×
- State v. HenryConnecticut Appellate Court· 2023-01-10
- State v. FosterConnecticut Appellate Court· 2023-02-07
- Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2024-04-02
- In re A. H.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2024-06-03
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court· 1970-11-23· cited 9,465×
- State v. CasianoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-05-29· cited 56×
- State v. EvansSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-08-21· cited 38×
- Town of Middlebury v. Department of Environmental ProtectionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-07-17· cited 18×
- Fletcher v. LiebermanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2019-06-19· cited 9×
- Staurovsky v. Milford Police Dept.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2017-03-07· cited 6×
- State v. SmithConnecticut Appellate Court· 2021-12-14· cited 3×
- State v. OmarConnecticut Appellate Court· 2021-12-14· cited 3×
Sourced 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.