State v. Williams-Bey

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Williams-Bey

169 A.3d 793, 326 Conn. 920, 2017 Conn. LEXIS 230

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJuly 10, 2017

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 169 A.3d 793 (State v. Williams-Bey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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?"

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.3d 793, 326 Conn. 920, 2017 Conn. LEXIS 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-williams-bey-conn-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack