180 Conn. App. 116
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant Jerome F. Moore was arrested August 6, 2014 for possession of heroin and charged under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-279(a). At the time of the offense a first-offense violation carried up to seven years imprisonment.
- While Moore was awaiting trial, the legislature amended § 21a-279(a) in a June 2015 special session (effective October 1, 2015), reclassifying first-time simple possession as a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year.
- Moore was convicted by a jury on April 1, 2016 of possession (but acquitted of intent to sell) and sentenced to five years on May 27, 2016 under the statute in effect when the crime occurred.
- Moore filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence arguing: (1) the 2015 amendment should apply retroactively (or under the amelioration doctrine), making his five-year sentence illegal; and (2) his five-year sentence is excessive and disproportionate under the federal and Connecticut constitutions given the changed legislative policy.
- The trial court denied the motion; the Appellate Court affirmed, holding the amendment was not retroactive and Moore’s eighth amendment claim failed; his state-constitutional claim under Geisler was inadequately briefed and therefore abandoned.
Issues
| Issue | Moore's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2015 amendment to § 21a-279(a) applies retroactively so Moore’s sentence exceeds the statutory maximum | The amendment reflects legislative intent (and budgetary purpose) to apply to pending cases; amelioration doctrine should apply | Savings statutes presult: statutes in effect at time of offense govern; no retroactive language in the amendment; amelioration conflicts with savings statutes | Amendment is not retroactive; sentence lawful under statute as of offense date; amelioration doctrine rejected per precedent |
| Whether Moore’s five-year sentence is excessive/disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment | Post-amendment legislative policy shows incarceration for simple possession is out of step with contemporary standards and thus the sentence is disproportionate and serves no penological purpose | Legislature could have made amendment retroactive if it intended; objective indicia don’t show a national shift; sentence serves penological goals (deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation) | Eighth Amendment claim fails: sentence not disproportionate or lacking penological justification |
| Whether Moore’s state constitutional claim (Conn. Const. art. I, §§ 8 & 9) can be reviewed | Moore contends state constitution affords broader protection and legislative history supports his claim | Moore failed to analyze claim under Geisler factors as required | State constitutional claim inadequately briefed and deemed abandoned |
| Whether extratextual legislative history/fiscal statements can create ambiguity supporting retroactivity | Moore argues plain reading yields absurd fiscal result; legislative history/fiscal impact supports retroactivity | Fiscal statements are not evidence of legislative intent; statutory text and savings statutes control | Statute unambiguous; extratextual materials not considered; no retroactivity inferred |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kalil, [citation="314 Conn. 529"] (recognizing presumption that law at time of offense governs and savings statutes bar retroactive application)
- State v. Santiago, [citation="318 Conn. 1"] (Eighth Amendment two-stage proportionality framework and application of Geisler factors in state constitutional analysis)
- State v. Geisler, [citation="222 Conn. 672"] (multi-factor framework for interpreting and applying the Connecticut Constitution)
- State v. Kevalis, [citation="313 Conn. 590"] (legislature knows how to express retroactivity; statutory text controls)