Researcher: MK Page 1 4/12/23
OLR Bill Analysis
SB 952
AN ACT CONCERNING PAROLE ELIGIBILITY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL
SERVING A LENGTHY SENTENCE FOR A CRIME COMMITTED
BEFORE THE INDIVIDUAL REACHED THE AGE OF TWENTY -FIVE.
SUMMARY
This bill broadens parole eligibility for certain offenders who were
under age 25 when they committed the crime.
Under current law, offenders serving a definite or total effective
sentence of more than 10 years for crimes committed before age 18 are
eligible for parole under certain circumstances. The bill extends parole
eligibility under these circumstances to offenders who were age 18, 19,
20, 21, 22, 23, or 24 when the crime was committed.
The bill correspondingly applies to this new age cohort existing law’s
parole eligibility rules and requirements on the parole hearing and
release decisions.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2023
PAROLE ELIGIBILITY
Alternate Parole Rules
Current law sets parole eligibility rules specifically for someone who
commits a crime under age 18 and is sentenced to more than 10 years in
prison. The bill increases, from age 18 to age 25, the age up to which this
eligibility rule applies.
As is the case under existing law, under the bill, these rules apply if
they make someone eligible for parole sooner than under existing law,
including someone who would otherwise be ineligible for parole. Under
these rules, someone sentenced to:
1. 10 to 50 years in prison is eligible for parole after serving the 2023SB-00952-R000508-BA.DOCX
Researcher: MK Page 2 4/12/23
greater of 12 years or 60% of his or her sentence or
2. more than 50 years in prison is eligible for parole after serving 30
years.
Under existing law, these rules apply to offenders incarcerated on
and after October 1, 2015, regardless of when the crime was committed,
or the offender sentenced. Under current law, the eligibility rules do not
apply to any portion of a sentence imposed for a crime committed when
the person was age 18 or older. The bill extends this limitation to any
portion of a sentence imposed for a crime committed when the person
was age 25 or older.
Required Hearing
As is the case under existing law for offenders who were under age
18, in cases involving 18-, 19-, 20-, 21-, 22-, 23-, and 24-year-old
offenders, the bill requires (1) a parole hearing when someone becomes
parole-eligible and (2) the board to notify, at least 12 months before the
hearing, the Chief Public Defender’s Office, appropriate state’s attorney,
Department of Correction’s (DOC) Victim Services Unit, Office of
Victim Advocate, and Judicial Branch’s Office of Victim Services. The
Chief Public Defender’s Office must provide counsel for an indigent
inmate.
At the hearing, the law requires the board to allow:
1. the inmate to make a statement;
2. the inmate’s counsel and state’s attorney to submit reports and
documents; and
3. any victim of the person’s crime to make a statement, as with
other parole hearings.
The board may also request (1) testimony from mental health
professionals and relevant witnesses and (2) reports from DOC or
others. The board must use validated risk and needs assessment tools
and risk-based structured decision making and release criteria. 2023SB-00952-R000508-BA.DOCX
Researcher: MK Page 3 4/12/23
Release Decisions
After the hearing, the law allows the board to release the inmate on
parole if:
1. the release (a) holds the offender accountable to the community
without compromising public safety; (b) reflects the offense’s
seriousness and makes the sentence proportional to the harm to
victims and the community; (c) uses the most appropriate
sanctions available, including prison, community punishment,
and supervision; (d) could reduce criminal activity, impose just
punishment, and provide the offender with meaningful and
effective rehabilitation and reintegration; and (e) is fair and
promotes respect for the law;
2. it appears from all available information, including DOC reports,
that (a) there is a reasonable probability the offender will not
violate the law again and (b) the benefits of release to the offender
and society substantially outweigh the benefits from continued
confinement; and
3. it appears from all available information, including DOC reports,
that the offender is substantially rehabilitated, considering his or
her character, background, and history, including (a) the
offender’s prison record, age, and circumstances at the time of
committing the crime; (b) whether he or she has shown remorse
and increased maturity since committing the crime; (c) his or her
contributions to others’ welfare through service; (d) the
opportunities for rehabilitation in prison; (e) the overall degree
of his or her rehabilitation considering the nature and
circumstances of the crime; and (f) his or her efforts to overcome
substance abuse, addiction, trauma, lack of education, or
obstacles he or she faced.
Under current law, the board’s consideration of the persons’ efforts
to overcome obstacles applies to those the person faced as a child or
youth in prison. The bill correspondingly requires the board to consider
the person’s efforts to overcome substance abuse, addiction, trauma, 2023SB-00952-R000508-BA.DOCX
Researcher: MK Page 4 4/12/23
lack of education, or obstacles he or she faced as a person under age 25
in prison.
By law, the board must articulate reasons for its decision on the
record. If the board denies parole, it may reassess the person’s
suitability for a hearing at a later time it determines but no sooner than
two years after the denial.
By law, the board’s decisions under these provisions are not
appealable.
BACKGROUND
A series of U.S. and Connecticut Supreme Court decisions were the
impetus to changing the law in 2015 to establish the alternate parole
eligibility rules for offenders who were under age 18 when the crime
was committed.
Related Cases — U.S. Supreme Court
In Graham v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth
Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment
prohibits states from sentencing defendants under age 18 to life without
parole for non-homicide crimes. The Court stated that there must be
“some meaningful opportunity” for release based on a defendant’s
demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. It said that the Eighth
Amendment does not prohibit a juvenile who commits a non-homicide
crime from being kept in prison for life but it prohibits making the
judgment “at the outset that those offenders never will be fit to re-enter
society” (130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010)).
In Miller v. Alabama, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eighth
Amendment prohibits courts from automatically imposing life without
parole sentences on offenders who committed homicides while they
were juveniles (under 18). The Court did not categorically bar life
without parole sentences for juveniles but stated that a court must “take
into account how children are different, and how those differences
counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison” (132
S. Ct. 2455 (2012)). 2023SB-00952-R000508-BA.DOCX
Researcher: MK Page 5 4/12/23
Related Cases — Connecticut Supreme Court
In State v. Riley, the Connecticut Supreme Court considered how the
U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings applied to someone convicted of
committing homicide and non-homicide crimes while a juvenile. The
juvenile in this case received a cumulative 100-year prison sentence. The
court ruled that even when a court has discretion in sentencing, as it did
in this case, Miller requires consideration of the juvenile’s youth as
mitigation before sentencing the juvenile to the functional equivalent of
a life sentence without the possibility of release. Because the sentencing
court did not consider the factors of youth, the court ordered a new
sentencing hearing.
In deference to the legislature and because the new sentence the
defendant would receive was uncertain, the court did not consider
whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Graham would require an
opportunity for release when a juvenile is sentenced to the functional
equivalent of life in prison (315 Conn. 637 (2015)).
In Casiano v. Commissioner of Correction, the Connecticut Supreme
Court ruled that Miller’s requirements to consider certain factors of
youth at sentencing apply (1) retroactively to juvenile offenders seeking
collateral review of sentences imposed before the U.S. Supreme Court
issued its ruling in Miller and (2) to a juvenile who received a total
effective sentence of 50 years in prison without eligibility for parole (317
Conn. 52 (2015)).
COMMITTEE ACTION
Judiciary Committee
Joint Favorable
Yea 25 Nay 12 (03/27/2023)