189 Conn. App. 119
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Defendant Haji Jhmalah Bischoff was convicted of possession of narcotics (merged heroin and cocaine counts under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-279(a)) and possession of less than four ounces of a cannabis-type substance; sentenced to seven years (execution suspended after five) plus probation; marijuana count concurrent.
- In a direct appeal, Bischoff argued he was entitled to resentencing under the 2015 amendment to § 21a-279, which reclassified a first offense as a Class A misdemeanor (maximum one year). This court rejected that claim in State v. Bischoff, and the Connecticut Supreme Court denied certification.
- Bischoff filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence asserting the 2015 amendment applied retroactively (or under the amelioration doctrine), so his sentence exceeded the new statutory maximum.
- The trial court dismissed the motion, citing the presumption against retroactivity, the lack of legislative language indicating retroactive effect, and Connecticut savings statutes; it rejected application of the amelioration doctrine.
- On appeal from dismissal, the Appellate Court held the claim was foreclosed by binding precedent (State v. Moore; State v. Kalil) and reversed only to change the form of relief: the court directed the trial court to render judgment denying (not dismissing) the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2015 amendment to § 21a-279 applies retroactively to reduce sentence | State: The law at time of offense governs; no retroactivity absent clear legislative intent; savings statutes control | Bischoff: Legislature intended retroactive application; amelioration doctrine requires applying reduced penalty retroactively | Held: No retroactive application; claim barred by precedent; amelioration doctrine not applied in Connecticut; motion should be denied (not dismissed) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Moore, 180 Conn. App. 116 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018) (Appellate Court held the 2015 amendment to § 21a-279 does not apply retroactively)
- State v. Kalil, 314 Conn. 529 (Conn. 2014) (Connecticut Supreme Court rejected application of the amelioration doctrine in light of savings statutes)
- State v. Bischoff, 182 Conn. App. 563 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018) (this court’s direct-appeal decision rejecting resentencing claim under the 2015 amendment)