Stephenson v. Commissioner of Correction

Citations

• 203 Conn. App. 314

Syllabus

The petitioner, who had been convicted of burglary in the third degree, attempt to commit tampering with physical evidence and attempt to commit arson in the second degree, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the Commissioner of Correction and the Board of Pardons and Paroles violated and misapplied the parole eligibility statute (§ 54- 125a) to increase his punishment, delay his parole eligibility date, and classify him as a violent offender. The habeas court issued an order declining to issue the writ of habeas corpus because, pursuant to the rule of practice (§ 23-24 (a)), the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and the petition did not present a claim on which the habeas court could grant relief. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for certification to appeal, which the habeas court denied, and the petitioner appealed to this court. Held that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal: the allegations in the petition were insufficient to allege a claim under the stigma plus test because inmates do not have a cognizable liberty interest in parole eligibility; moreover, assuming that a habeas petitioner could state, as a matter of law, a viable stigma plus claim on the basis of his classification as a violent offender, the petitioner failed to allege facts demonstrating that his classification as a violent offender caused him to suffer conse- quences that were qualitatively different from the punishments that are usually suffered by prisoners so that they constituted a major change in conditions of his confinement amounting to a grievous loss; accord- ingly, the petitioner failed to sufficiently allege a cognizable liberty interest invoking the subject matter jurisdiction of the habeas court. Argued November 16, 2020—officially released March 16, 2021