State v. Rivera, 172 A.3d 260

Background

Jose Rivera committed a homicide at age 17 (1997) and pleaded guilty in 1999; court imposed concurrent sentences with a 25-year mandatory minimum on the murder count (initially without parole eligibility).
Rivera filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence (Practice Book § 43-22) in 2014 arguing his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment under Miller v. Alabama and that Connecticut law required consideration of youth mitigating factors.
After Rivera filed his appeal, the legislature enacted P.A. 15-84 (codified in part at § 54-125a(f)) granting parole eligibility to certain juvenile offenders, and Connecticut Supreme Court decided State v. Delgado.
The trial court dismissed Rivera’s motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; Rivera appealed to the Appellate Court.
The Appellate Court considered (1) whether Delgado bars Miller-based relief where parole eligibility exists, (2) whether Connecticut’s constitution (art. I, §§ 8 & 9) affords greater protection than federal law for juveniles facing mandatory minimums, and (3) an unpreserved claim that the court accepted waiver of a presentence report without canvassing Rivera.

Issues

Issue	Rivera's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider a Miller‑based motion to correct an illegal sentence after P.A. 15-84 made Rivera parole‑eligible	Rivera: His 25‑year mandatory sentence was imposed without consideration of Miller youth factors and is thus illegal	State/Delgado: P.A. 15-84 confers parole eligibility; Miller applies only to life without parole (or functional equivalent), so no colorable illegal‑sentence claim	Dismissal affirmed: under Delgado and § 54-125a(f) Rivera is parole eligible and Miller does not create jurisdiction to correct his sentence
Whether Connecticut Constitution (art. I, §§ 8 & 9) prohibits mandatory 25‑year minimum for juvenile homicide offenders	Rivera: State constitution provides broader protection; Miller factors must be considered and the mandatory minimum is cruel and unusual	State: Geisler factors and Connecticut precedent do not support broader protection; contemporary law (including § 54-125a(f)) weighs against invalidation	Rejected: applying Geisler multifactor test, court held no state‑constitutional violation; 25‑year mandatory minimum with parole eligibility is not cruel and unusual
Whether the trial court’s acceptance of waiver of a presentence investigation report without canvassing Rivera was constitutional (unpreserved)	Rivera: Waiver (through counsel) without canvass violated his rights and compromised Miller‑related sentencing protections	State: Claim not preserved; remedy lies with trial court on motion to correct; Golding review inappropriate here	Not reached on merits: appellate review declined (Golding review unwarranted); Rivera may raise issue in trial court via motion to correct

Key Cases Cited

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional absent individualized youth consideration)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (juvenile non‑homicide offenders entitled to meaningful opportunity for release)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (death penalty unconstitutional for juvenile offenders)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller applies retroactively; parole eligibility can remedy Miller violations)
State v. Delgado, 323 Conn. 801 (2016) (after P.A. 15-84 parole eligibility, Miller does not require youth‑factor consideration for sentences that include parole)
State v. Riley, 315 Conn. 637 (2015) (Miller applies to life without parole and functional equivalents; sentencing court must consider youth factors)
Casiano v. Commissioner of Correction, 317 Conn. 52 (2015) (Miller retrospective application in collateral review; long terms may be functional equivalents of life)
State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672 (1992) (Geisler multifactor framework for assessing whether state constitution provides broader protection)