State v. Williams-Bey

169 A.3d 793, 326 Conn. 920, 2017 Conn. LEXIS 230
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided July 10, 2017·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The defendant's petitions for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 167 Conn.App. 744, 164 A.3d 9 (2016), and 173 Conn.App. 64, 164 A.3d 31 (2017), is granted, limited to the following questions:

"1. Under the Connecticut constitution, article first, §§ 8 and 9, are all juveniles entitled to a sentencing proceeding at which the court expressly considers the youth related factors required by the United States constitution for cases involving juveniles who have been sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release? See Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) ?

"2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative and a sentencing court does not comply with the sentencing requirements under the Connecticut constitution, does parole eligibility under General Statutes § 54-125a (f) adequately remedy any state constitutional violation?"

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

State v. Williams-Bey, 169 A.3d 793, 326 Conn. 920, 2017 Conn. LEXIS 230 (Colo. 2017).

169 A.3d 793 (State v. Williams-Bey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Watts v. Commissioner of Correction
194 Conn. App. 558 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2019)
State v. Williams-Bey
333 Conn. 468 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2019)
State v. Rivera
172 A.3d 260 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2017)
State v. Hathaway
172 A.3d 258 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2017)
State v. McGee
168 A.3d 495 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2017)