James E. v. Commissioner of Correction, 326 Conn. 388

Petitioner James E. committed offenses in 2010 and was later convicted and sentenced (total effective sentence: 20 years, execution suspended after 10 years).
In 2011 the legislature enacted § 18-98e (risk reduction credit) and amended § 54-125a to allow earned risk reduction credit to advance parole eligibility dates.
James was sentenced in March 2012 after the 2011 amendments had taken effect; risk reduction credit remained discretionary and revocable by the Commissioner.
In 2013 the legislature repealed the language in § 54-125a(b)(2) that allowed parole eligibility to be calculated from the definite sentence reduced by earned risk reduction credit (P.A. 13-3 §59); earned credit still reduced the executed sentence but no longer advanced parole eligibility.
James filed a habeas petition claiming the 2013 amendment violated the federal ex post facto clause by increasing the time before parole; the Commissioner moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The habeas court dismissed, concluding the proper point of comparison is the law in effect at the time of the offense (not sentencing) and that the 2013 provision was identical to the parole rule in effect when James committed the offenses; this Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (James)	Defendant's Argument (Commissioner)	Held
Whether the 2013 repeal of language allowing earned risk reduction credit to advance parole eligibility violates the federal ex post facto clause	Compare the 2013 amendment to the statute in effect at sentencing; repeal increased punishment because James would have benefited from the 2011 provision at sentencing	Compare the 2013 amendment to the statute in effect at the time of the offense; no ex post facto violation because the law at offense time already denied earned-credit advancement	Court held the proper comparison is the law at the time of the offense; no jurisdiction because the 2013 provision was not more punitive than the law in effect when the crime occurred

Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433 (1997) (Supreme Court considered ex post facto challenge by comparing law at offense and sentencing where they were essentially the same)
Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 258 Conn. 804 (Conn. 2001) (ex post facto analysis uses the law in effect when the criminal act occurred)
Perez v. Commissioner of Correction, 326 Conn. 357 (Conn. 2017) (companion case holding identical claim lacked jurisdiction because the challenged provision matched the law at the time of the offense)
State v. James E., 154 Conn. App. 795 (Conn. App. 2015) (underlying criminal conviction and sentencing history)