State v. McCleese
Citations
- 333 Conn. 378
Syllabus
Pursuant to Miller v. Alabama (567 U.S. 460) and State v. Riley (315 Conn. 637), the prohibition against cruel and usual punishments in the federal constitution precludes a court from sentencing a juvenile offender to life imprisonment, or its functional equivalent, without the possibility of parole, unless the juvenile offender's age and the hallmarks of adoles- cence have been considered as mitigating factors in the sentencing deter- mination. Pursuant further to recent legislation (P.A. 15-84, § 1), a person convicted of a crime or crimes committed while such person was under eighteen years of age who received a total effective sentence of more than ten years prior to or after the effective date of the act becomes eligible for parole after serving 60 percent of his or her sentence, or in the case of sentences of more than fifty years imprisonment, after serving thirty years. The defendant, who had been convicted of the crimes of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and assault in the first degree, appealed from the trial court's dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant was seventeen years old when he committed the crimes and was sentenced to eighty-five years imprisonment without eligibility for parole. The sentencing court made no express reference to the defen- dant's youth and the hallmarks of adolescence as mitigating factors when it sentenced him. After the defendant was sentenced, Miller and Riley were decided, and P.A. 15-84 was enacted. The defendant claimed before the court deciding his motion to correct that, under the federal and state constitutions, his sentence was imposed in an illegal manner because the sentencing court made no express reference to his youth and the hallmarks of adolescence as mitigating factors. The defendant also claimed that the retroactive parole eligibility that he was afforded by P.A. 15-84 did not constitute a remedy for a Miller violation under the Connecticut constitution, and, thus, he was ent
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- granting defendant’s request to file supplemental brief to address effect of decision released after defendant filed initial brief
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
69 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court· 1976-02-24· cited 16,859×
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court· 1963-03-18· cited 8,419×
- Albright v. OliverSupreme Court· 1994-01-24· cited 7,028×
- Miller v. AlabamaSupreme Court· 2012-06-25· cited 6,816×
- Teague v. LaneSupreme Court· 1989-04-17· cited 6,602×
- Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2015-06-26· cited 5,137×
- Roper v. SimmonsSupreme Court· 2005-03-01· cited 3,523×
- Graham v. FloridaSupreme Court· 2010-05-17· cited 3,477×
- Atkins v. VirginiaSupreme Court· 2002-06-20· cited 3,384×
- Herrera v. CollinsSupreme Court· 1993-01-25· cited 3,060×
- Morissette v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1952-01-07· cited 3,056×
- Montgomery v. LouisianaSupreme Court· 2016-01-25· cited 2,780×
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
- United States v. TuckerSupreme Court· 1972-01-11· cited 2,508×
- Palko v. ConnecticutSupreme Court· 1937-12-06· cited 2,059×
- Welch v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2016-04-18· cited 1,417×
- People v. FranklinCalifornia Supreme Court· 2016-05-26· cited 726×
- Sawyer v. SmithSupreme Court· 1990-08-30· cited 646×
- Kennedy v. LouisianaSupreme Court· 2008-06-25· cited 620×
- Pamela B. v. MentSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-03-31· cited 501×
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.