184 Conn. App. 228
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Petitioner Dean Holliday was convicted in 2002 of crimes arising from a 2001 attempted robbery and received an effective sentence (later reduced) and remains in DOC custody.
- In 2011 the legislature enacted § 18-98e (risk reduction credits) and amended § 54-125a(b) to allow earned risk reduction credits to reduce parole eligibility time for some inmates; Holliday earned such credits.
- In July 2013 the legislature amended § 54-125a(b) to prohibit applying § 18-98e credits to parole eligibility for violent offenders, restoring an 85% service requirement and eliminating credits previously applied to Holliday’s parole date.
- Holliday filed a pro se habeas petition (Dec. 2014) claiming the 2013 amendment violated the federal Constitution’s Ex Post Facto, Due Process, and Equal Protection protections by revoking his earned credits.
- The habeas court dismissed the petition sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Practice Book § 23-29(1); the court granted certification to appeal and Holliday appealed.
- The Appellate Court affirmed, concluding Holliday did not assert a cognizable liberty interest in risk reduction credits and, even if he had, the ex post facto claim failed because repeal of postconviction favorable legislation merely returned him to his pre-enactment position.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas court had jurisdiction to hear ex post facto claim based on 2013 repeal of credit application | Holliday: repeal revoked credits earned under 2011 law and thus violates ex post facto protections | State: petitioner has no vested liberty interest in credits; repeal returned him to his pre-2011 position so no colorable ex post facto claim | Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed; repeal not a viable ex post facto claim here |
| Whether habeas court had jurisdiction to hear due process/equal protection claims | Holliday: repeal and removal of credits violated due process and equal protection | State: these claims require a cognizable liberty interest in credits; none exists | Dismissal affirmed: no liberty interest in risk reduction credit, so jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether court erred by dismissing sua sponte without notice or hearing | Holliday: dismissal without notice/hearing was improper | State: Practice Book § 23-29(1) permits dismissal when jurisdiction plainly lacking; § 23-40 does not create an absolute right to a hearing | Dismissal without hearing was proper because petition failed to allege facts sufficient to invoke jurisdiction |
| Whether Petaway/Perez/James E. precedent bars jurisdiction | Holliday: argued the court improperly relied on Petaway for due process/equal protection claims | State: controlling precedent holds no liberty interest in credits and that repeals of favorable postconviction laws do not create ex post facto claim | Precedent controls; petition dismissed under those authorities |
Key Cases Cited
- Petaway v. Commissioner of Correction, 160 Conn. App. 727 (Conn. App. 2015) (holding petitioner asserted no colorable ex post facto claim where favorable postconviction legislation was later repealed)
- Perez v. Commissioner of Correction, 326 Conn. 357 (Conn. 2017) (no vested liberty interest in risk reduction credits; due process/equal protection claims require cognizable liberty interest)
- James E. v. Commissioner of Correction, 326 Conn. 388 (Conn. 2017) (same-day companion decision addressing similar ex post facto issues)
- Teague v. Quarterman, 482 F.3d 769 (5th Cir. 2007) (discusses procedural due process concepts cited by petitioner)
- Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1985) (equal protection principles referenced by petitioner)