State v. Jackson, 153 Conn.App. 639

Defendant Herbert L. Jackson was convicted by jury (crime date Jan. 8, 1996) of conspiracy to commit burglary (1st), conspiracy to commit robbery (2nd), and aggravated sexual assault in the first degree.
On June 8, 2001, he received a 35-year effective sentence: 15 years (merged conspiracies) consecutive to 20 years for aggravated sexual assault (no special parole component).
Public Act 99-2 §50 (effective Oct. 1, 1999) amended Conn. Gen. Stat. §53a-70a(b) to require a period of special parole so that imprisonment plus special parole together constitute 20 years for first‑degree aggravated sexual assault.
Defendant moved to correct an illegal sentence in 2012–2013, arguing the 1999 amendment should apply retroactively (or under an amelioration doctrine) to require special parole instead of his original sentence structure.
Trial court denied the motion; defendant appealed, arguing retroactive application of P.A. 99-2 or application of an amelioration doctrine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether P.A. 99-2 §50 applies retroactively to defendants whose offenses predate Oct. 1, 1999	State: savings statutes require sentencing under law in effect when offense occurred; no retroactivity	Jackson: legislature intended retroactive application of amended §53a-70a(b) (or amelioration doctrine should apply)	Court: No retroactive application; sentenced under statute at time of offense; denial affirmed
Whether the amelioration doctrine requires retroactive application of a statute that lessens penalties	State: savings statutes control; amelioration cannot override them	Jackson: amendment lessens/changes punishment such that it should be applied retroactively	Court: Declined to adopt amelioration to override legislative savings rule; bound by precedent (Graham)
Whether the motion to correct an illegal sentence was a proper vehicle to challenge applicable sentencing statute	State: such claims are reviewable by motion to correct	Jackson: sought correction based on statutory interpretation	Court: Court had jurisdiction and properly decided the motion on merits	Motion properly considered but denied
Whether statutory text or extratextual evidence governs retroactivity here	State: statute is clear on effective date; no ambiguity, so extratextual sources unnecessary	Jackson: argued legislative intent supported retroactivity	Court: Statute plain and unambiguous; review ends with text; no retroactivity	Statute not ambiguous; no retroactivity

State v. Quinet, 253 Conn. 392 (statutory construction governs retroactivity of criminal statutes)
State v. Boysaw, 99 Conn. App. 358 (issues of statutory construction reviewed plenarily)
Carmel Hollow Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Bethlehem, 269 Conn. 120 (threshold plain‑meaning determination controls use of extratextual evidence)
State v. Orr, 291 Conn. 642 (ambiguity exists only if language reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation)
State v. Graham, 56 Conn. App. 507 (rejecting judicially created amelioration doctrine where legislature enacted savings statutes)
State v. Lawrence, 281 Conn. 147 (claims about applicable sentencing statute are reviewable via motion to correct)
State v. Jackson, 75 Conn. App. 578 (appellate decision affirming defendant’s convictions)