O'Neil v. Warden, No. Cv 01-0808967 S (Oct. 17, 2001)

Connecticut Superior Court

O'Neil v. Warden, No. Cv 01-0808967 S (Oct. 17, 2001)

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 14663

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 17, 2001

DocketNo. CV 01-0808967 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 14663 (O'Neil v. Warden, No. Cv 01-0808967 S (Oct. 17, 2001)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'Neil v. Warden, No. Cv 01-0808967 S (Oct. 17, 2001), 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 14663 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Petitioner claims to have been arrested on November 11, 1994 for the crime that was obviously committed prior to July 1, 1996, which is prior to the effective date of Public Act No. 95-255 § 1. Respondent has provided Petitioner's mittimus with dates of offenses, first count under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-55a(a) date of offense 11/11/94, and second count under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-172 date of offense 6/20/95. Petitioner claims that under Gus Woods v. Warden, he should be required to serve only fifty percent of his sentence instead of eighty-five percent of his sentence before being eligible for parole.

In accordance with Gus Woods, Jazrael King and Miguel Rentas v.Warden, the habeas petition is granted, the Court having found in the aforementioned cases that Public Act 95-255 § 1 is ex post facto and, therefore, unconstitutional as to inmates whose crimes were committed prior to July 1, 1996.

Rittenband, JTR

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Petitioner claims to have been arrested on November 11, 1994 for the crime that was obviously committed prior to July 1, 1996, which is prior to the effective date of Public Act No. 95-255 § 1. Respondent has provided Petitioner's mittimus with dates of offenses, first count under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-55a(a) date of offense 11/11/94, and second count under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-172 date of offense 6/20/95. Petitioner claims that under Gus Woods v. Warden, he should be required to serve only fifty percent of his sentence instead of eighty-five percent of his sentence before being eligible for parole.

In accordance with Gus Woods, Jazrael King and Miguel Rentas v.Warden, the habeas petition is granted, the Court having found in the aforementioned cases that Public Act 95-255 § 1 is ex post facto and, therefore, unconstitutional as to inmates whose crimes were committed prior to July 1, 1996.

Rittenband, JTR

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 14663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneil-v-warden-no-cv-01-0808967-s-oct-17-2001-connsuperct-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack