State v. Kalil, 107 A.3d 343

Dissenting opinion in State v. Kalil, addressing retroactivity of P.A. 09-138 in larceny sentencing.
P.A. 09-138 increased the monetary threshold for larceny in the second degree from $5,000 to $10,000.
The Appellate Court held the amelioration doctrine did not apply retroactively.
The dissent argues the amelioration doctrine should apply retroactively to Kalil.
Savings statutes (General Statutes §§ 1-1(t) and 54-194) do not bar retroactive application under the circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether P.A. 09-138 applies retroactively to Kalil	Kalil—retroactive under amelioration doctrine	State—no retroactive effect under savings approach	Retroactive per amelioration doctrine
Whether savings statutes bar retroactive application of P.A. 09-138	Savings statutes do not preclude retroactivity	Savings statutes bar retroactivity as a matter of principle	Savings statutes do not bar retroactivity in this context

People v. Oliver, 1 N.Y.2d 152 (N.Y. 1956) (ameliorative legislation may apply retroactively when reducing penalties)
In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (retroactivity for ameliorative amendments generally applies)
State v. Graham, 56 Conn. App. 507 (Conn. App. 2000) (amelioration doctrine referenced in sentencing context)
Simborski v. Wheeler, 121 Conn. 195 (Conn. 1936) (savings statutes and effect on repeals discussed)
State v. Daley, 29 Conn. 272 (Conn. 1860) (early abatement and savings doctrine backdrop)
Castonguay v. Commissioner of Correction, 300 Conn. 649 (Conn. 2011) (amelioration doctrine referenced in retroactivity analysis)
State v. Havican, 213 Conn. 593 (Conn. 1990) (Connecticut reliance on common-law abatement context)
Simborski v. Wheeler, 121 Conn. 198 (Conn. 1936) (savings statutes discussion in context of repeals)