186 Conn. App. 506
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Rivera pleaded guilty in 2009 to first‑degree manslaughter (§ 53a‑55) and was sentenced to 20 years (15 years to serve, execution suspended after 15).
- In 2011 the legislature enacted P.A. 11‑51 (codified as § 18‑98e), creating discretionary earned risk reduction credits (up to 5 days/month) that the Commissioner could grant or revoke; Rivera became eligible under that statute.
- In 2015 the legislature amended § 18‑98e by P.A. 15‑216 to add § 53a‑55 convictions to the list of ineligible offenses, making Rivera ineligible prospectively to earn future credits.
- Rivera filed a pro se habeas petition alleging ex post facto violation and discrimination because P.A. 15‑216 removed his eligibility to earn future risk reduction credits; he did not allege loss of credits already earned.
- The habeas court sua sponte dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Practice Book § 23‑29(1); after appellate direction the court issued an articulation explaining that Rivera had no protected liberty interest in prospective discretionary credits and the amendment did not increase his sentence.
- Rivera obtained certification to appeal; the Appellate Court affirmed, holding the habeas court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction over the ex post facto and discrimination claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the habeas court had jurisdiction over Rivera's ex post facto claim | Rivera: application of P.A. 15‑216 made him ineligible for credits he had been earning, so amendment is retroactive and violates ex post facto | State: Rivera never had a protected liberty interest in future discretionary credits; amendment returned him to pre‑offense position and did not lengthen his sentence | Court: Dismissal affirmed—no jurisdiction; no cognizable liberty interest and no colorable ex post facto claim |
| Whether Rivera had a constitutionally protected liberty interest in future risk reduction credits | Rivera: future credit opportunity is sufficiently concrete to support habeas relief | State: § 18‑98e confers only discretionary benefits; discretionary statutory schemes do not create liberty interests | Court: No protected liberty interest; discretionary scheme precludes habeas jurisdiction |
| Whether the 2015 amendment increased Rivera's punishment (ex post facto inquiry) | Rivera: loss of eligibility is retroactive punishment | State: Amendment merely restored status at time of offense; did not extend confinement or delay eligibility that existed when offense occurred | Court: Amendment did not increase punishment; ex post facto claim fails |
| Whether the habeas court’s later articulation improperly modified the judgment | Rivera: articulation supplied a new legal basis and was untimely under § 52‑212a | State: (not reached due to jurisdictional ruling) | Court: Declined to decide because jurisdictional ruling was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Petaway v. Commissioner of Correction, 160 Conn. App. 727 (discretionary credits do not create protected liberty interest)
- Perez v. Commissioner of Correction, 326 Conn. 357 (ex post facto inquiry compares statute to law at time of offense; no liberty interest in early parole eligibility or discretionary credits)
- Joyce v. Commissioner of Correction, 129 Conn. App. 37 (to invoke habeas jurisdiction petitioner must allege illegal confinement or deprivation of liberty)
- Vitale v. Commissioner of Correction, 178 Conn. App. 844 (liberty interest must be assured by statute, decree, or regulation)
- Green v. Commissioner of Correction, 184 Conn. App. 76 (no liberty interest where statutory scheme is discretionary)
- Holliday v. Commissioner of Correction, 184 Conn. App. 228 (habeas dismissal proper for ex post facto claim based on change to discretionary earned credit scheme)
- Abed v. Commissioner of Correction, 43 Conn. App. 176 (prospective denial of discretionary credits does not state cognizable ex post facto claim)