209 Conn.App. 283
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background:
- Defendant Ben B. Omar was convicted in 2010 of multiple narcotics offenses (offenses occurred in 2009) and originally sentenced to a 21‑year aggregate term with 5 years probation.
- In 2016, after cooperating with the state, the trial court modified his sentence to 8 years incarceration followed by 5 years of special parole.
- In 2018 the legislature enacted P.A. 18‑63 (effective October 1, 2018), which amended §§ 53a‑28(b) and 54‑125e(b) to prohibit imposing special parole for offenses under chapter 420b and to tighten when special parole may be imposed.
- Omar filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence seeking elimination of the 2016 special‑parole term based on P.A. 18‑63; the state objected.
- The trial court denied the motion, concluding P.A. 18‑63 does not apply retroactively; Omar appealed and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether P.A. 18‑63 applies retroactively to void Omar’s 2016 special‑parole term | P.A. 18‑63 is procedural (like the juvenile transfer change in Nathaniel S.) and therefore applies retroactively absent clear contrary legislative intent | P.A. 18‑63 changes the punishment scheme; savings statutes (§§54‑194, 1‑1(t)) and precedent require prospective application absent explicit retroactive language | Affirmed: P.A. 18‑63 applies prospectively only; the 2016 special‑parole term stands |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nathaniel S., 323 Conn. 290 (2016) (juvenile transfer amendment was procedural/automatic and applied retroactively)
- State v. Kalil, 314 Conn. 529 (2014) (generally apply law in effect at time of offense for changes affecting punishment; legislative intent governs retroactivity)
- State v. Bischoff, 337 Conn. 739 (2021) (savings statutes create presumption against retroactivity for amendments that repeal/replace criminal punishment schemes)