Taylor v. Commissioner of Correction
2012 WL 2892214
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- David Taylor, a United Kingdom citizen, is serving a mandatory minimum 25-year sentence for murder in Connecticut-based custody.
- Taylor has repeatedly sought transfer to the United Kingdom since 2001; the latest request was denied in 2009 by the Commissioner of Correction.
- The denial letter cited seriousness of the crime, sentence length, time remaining, disparity of administration, and impact on the victim’s family.
- Taylor filed a complaint on April 13, 2010 for a declaratory judgment to compel transfer to the UK, asserting violations of state, federal, and international law.
- The trial court dismissed the action on February 10, 2011 for lack of standing, concluding Taylor was not aggrieved, either statutorily or classically, by the denial, and thus lacked jurisdiction to seek relief.
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding Taylor failed to demonstrate statutory or classical aggrievement; § 18-91a does not confer standing and there is no right to transfer to a particular location.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Taylor has standing to sue over denial of transfer | Taylor is statutorily and classically aggrieved | No standing; no statutory grant or protected interest | Taylor lacks standing on both statutory and classical grounds |
| Whether § 18-91a confers statutory aggrievement or a right to judicial relief | Statutory aggrievement exists to enforce treaty objectives | Statute does not grant judicial review or a right to relief | No statutory aggrievement; no judicial review right under § 18-91a |
Key Cases Cited
- Canty v. Otto, 304 Conn. 546 (2012) (discusses aggrievement framework and standing analysis)
- Brouillard v. Connecticut Siting Council, 133 Conn. App. 851 (2012) (explains statutory interpretation and aggrievement)
- Asherman v. Meachum, 213 Conn. 38 (1989) (no constitutional right to transfer or confinement location)
- McWeeny v. Hartford, 287 Conn. 56 (2008) (standings analysis for statutory aggrievement)
- State v. Bletsch, 281 Conn. 5 (2007) (explains interpretation of may vs must in statute)