Byrd v. Commissioner of Correction
171 A.3d 1103
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Byrd committed a violent offense on Sept. 13, 2010, pleaded guilty in Jan. 2012 and was sentenced to eight years (with 85% parole-ineligibility for violent offenders) plus special parole.
- In 2011 the legislature enacted P.A. 11-51, §18-98e permitting discretionary risk-reduction credits and amended §54-125a(b) to allow those credits to reduce parole-eligibility dates.
- In 2013 the legislature removed the clause allowing risk-reduction credits to be applied to parole-eligibility, so credits could shorten incarceration but no longer advance parole consideration.
- Byrd filed a habeas petition (count one: ex post facto claim that 2013 law cannot be applied to him; count two: claimed heart disease and sought additional credits/medical parole) and moved for summary judgment.
- The habeas court dismissed count one for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (following reasoning in Petaway) and dismissed count two for lack of jurisdiction / failure to state a habeas claim; the court denied certification to appeal and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retroactive application of the 2013 amendment violates the Ex Post Facto Clause | Byrd: 2013 change removing credit application to parole eligibility cannot be applied to him because 2011 law (which benefited him) was in effect when he was sentenced | Commissioner: No constitutional right to parole or to have credits applied to parole eligibility; changes do not increase punishment that attached at time of crime | Court: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — the 2011–2013 changes did not make punishment more onerous at time of the 2010 crime, so ex post facto not implicated |
| Whether habeas court has jurisdiction over health/medical parole claim seeking additional credits or release | Byrd: Stress/health from litigation entitles him to additional credits and conditional medical parole | Commissioner: Parole eligibility and discretionary credits do not create a protected liberty interest; claim depends on count one | Court: Dismissed — petitioner failed to allege illegal confinement or protected liberty interest; parole eligibility is not cognizable in habeas |
Key Cases Cited
- Petaway v. Commissioner of Correction, 160 Conn. App. 727 (Conn. App. 2015) (analyzing whether discretionary risk-reduction credits combined with statutory change create a colorable ex post facto claim)
- Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 258 Conn. 804 (Conn. 2002) (framework for determining whether retroactive law creates a sufficient risk of increased punishment for ex post facto purposes)
- Baker v. Commissioner of Correction, 281 Conn. 241 (Conn. 2007) (holding parole eligibility under §54-125a is not a protected liberty interest for habeas jurisdiction)