Connecticut Statutes
§ 54-125a — Parole of inmate serving sentence of more than two years. Eligibility. Hearing to determine suitability for parole release of certain inmates.
Connecticut § 54-125a
This text of Connecticut § 54-125a (Parole of inmate serving sentence of more than two years. Eligibility. Hearing to determine suitability for parole release of certain inmates.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-125a (2026).
Text
(a)A person convicted of one or more crimes who is incarcerated on or after October 1, 1990, who received a definite sentence or total effective sentence of more than two years, and who has been confined under such sentence or sentences for not less than one-half of the total effective sentence less any risk reduction credit earned under the provisions of section 18-98e or one-half of the most recent sentence imposed by the court less any risk reduction credit earned under the provisions of section 18-98e, whichever is greater, may be allowed to go at large on parole (1) in accordance with the provisions of section 54-125i, or (2) in the discretion of a panel of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, if (A) it appears from all available information, including any reports from the Commissioner
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Johnson v. Warden, No. 99-0549240 (Sep. 29, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 11858 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Petitpas v. Warden, No. Cv01-0810389-S (Sep. 28, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 13468-lc (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Santos v. Warden, No. Cv01-809863 (Aug. 21, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 11498 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Durham v. Warden and Board of Parole, No. 554856 (Jan. 12, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 1029 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Labelle v. Warden, No. 01-0805639 S (Nov. 29, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 15718 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Daniels v. Warden, No. Cv-97-0573895-S (Apr. 13, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 5272 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Whistnant v. Armstrong, No. Cv00-0805715-S (Mar. 21, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 4153 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Velez v. Bates, No. 561843 (Nov. 5, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 14180 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Janton v. Armstrong, No. Cv00-805674-S (Mar. 16, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 4114 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Smith v. Warden, No. Cv01-0810531-S (Sep. 28, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 13468-kj (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Justin v. Warden, No. Cv-99-0589510 (Mar. 9, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 4732 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Daniels v. Warden, No. Cv-97-0573895s (Mar. 8, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 3315 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Bell v. Warden, No. Cv01-811672 (Oct. 24, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 14173 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Mc Commic v. Warden, No. Cv 94 1895 S (May 3, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 4289 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Edwards v. Warden, No. Cv00-809864 (Aug. 21, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 11477 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Antunes v. Armstrong, No. Cv00-0805635-S (Mar. 21, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 4076 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Nadeau v. Armstrong, No. Cv00-0805673-S (Mar. 21, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 4133 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Garabedian v. Armstrong, No. Cv00-805636-S (Mar. 19, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 4096 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Gray v. Giles
(D. Connecticut, 2023)
Charles v. Warden, No. Cv-98-0576815 (Feb. 19, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 2573 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Legislative History
(P.A. 90-261, S. 5; P.A. 92-114; P.A. 93-219, S. 2, 14; P.A. 94-37, S. 2; P.A. 95-255, S. 1–3; P.A. 99-196, S. 2; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 01-9, S. 74, 131; P.A. 04-234, S. 2, 3; Jan. Sp. Sess. P.A. 08-1, S. 5; P.A. 10-36, S. 30; P.A. 11-51, S. 25; P.A. 12-5, S. 32; P.A. 13-3, S. 59; 13-247, S. 376; P.A. 15-84, S. 1; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 15-2, S. 12–15; P.A. 23-169, S. 1; P.A. 24-24, S. 27.) History: P.A. 92-114 amended Subsec. (a) to make eligible for parole a person convicted of “one or more crimes” who received “a definite sentence or aggregate sentence of more than one year and has been confined under such sentence or sentences for not less than one-half of the aggregate sentence or one-half of the most recent sentence imposed by the court, whichever is greater”, rather than only a person convicted of “a felony” who received “a definite sentence of more than one year who has been confined under such sentence for not less than one-half of the sentence imposed by the court”; P.A. 93-219 amended Subsec. (a) to limit parole eligibility to persons who received a sentence of more than two years, rather than more than one year, effective July 1, 1993; P.A. 94-37 amended Subsec. (b) to make ineligible for parole a person convicted of an offense committed with a firearm in or on, or within 1,500 feet of, the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school; P.A. 95-255 amended Subsec. (b) to add Subdiv. (2) re parole eligibility of persons convicted of offenses involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force, designating existing provision re parole ineligibility of certain offenders as Subdiv. (1) and existing provision re parole eligibility of persons convicted of offenses carrying a mandatory minimum sentence as Subdiv. (3), effective July 1, 1996, and added Subsec. (c) requiring the Board of Parole to adopt regulations re the classification and release of violent offenders, effective July 1, 1995; P.A. 99-196 amended Subsec. (b) to delete Subdiv. (3) re parole eligibility date of a person convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum sentence; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 01-9 added Subsec. (d) requiring the Board of Parole to submit reports re the number of persons whose eligibility for parole release is subject to Subsec. (a) and who have completed 75% of their definite sentence but have not been approved for parole release and made technical changes for purposes of gender neutrality in Subsec. (a), effective July 1, 2001; P.A. 04-234 amended Subsec. (a) to provide that parolee shall, while on parole, remain “under the jurisdiction” of board rather than “in the legal custody” of board and provide that limits of parolee's residence may be changed in discretion of “the board and the Commissioner of Correction” rather than in discretion of “such panel”, amended Subsec. (b) to delete provision making ineligible for parole a person convicted of offense committed with a firearm in or on, or within 1,500 feet of an elementary or secondary school, add provision making ineligible for parole a person convicted of aggravated assault in the first degree, as provided in Sec. 53a-70a and make technical changes, deleted former Subsec. (d) requiring Board of Parole to submit reports re the number of persons whose eligibility for parole release is subject to Subsec. (a) and who have completed 75% of their definite sentence but have not been approved for parole release, added new Subsec. (d) to require board to hold hearing to determine suitability for parole release of any person whose eligibility for parole release is not subject to Subsec. (b) upon completion of 75% of such person's sentence, require employee or panel to reassess suitability for parole release of such a person, specify standards for reassessment, require board to articulate for the record its reasons if it determines that continued confinement is necessary and provide that decision of board is not appealable, added new Subsec. (e) to require board to hold hearing to determine suitability for parole release of any person whose eligibility for parole release is not subject to Subsec. (b)(2) upon completion of 85% of such person's sentence, require employee or panel to assess suitability for parole release of such a person, specify standards for reassessment, require board to articulate for the record its reasons if it determines that continued confinement is necessary and provide that decision of board is not appealable and added new Subsec. (f) to provide that a person remains in custody of Commissioner of Correction and is subject to supervision by personnel of Department of Correction while on parole, effective June 8, 2004, and replaced Board of Parole with Board of Pardons and Paroles, effective July 1, 2004; Jan. Sp. Sess. P.A. 08-1 amended Subsec. (b)(2) to add Subpara. (A) re person convicted of a violation of Sec. 53a-100aa or 53a-102 and designate existing provision as Subpara. (B), effective March 1, 2008; P.A. 10-36 amended Subsec. (a) to require state's attorney to send board the record, if any, of each person sentenced to more than 2 years, rather than more than 1 year, effective July 1, 2010; P.A. 11-51 provided for deduction from person's sentence of any risk reduction credit earned under Sec. 18-98e when calculating parole eligibility date under Subsecs. (a) to (c), length of time under jurisdiction of board under Subsec. (a) and date for parole suitability hearing under Subsecs. (d) and (e), effective July 1, 2011; P.A. 12-5 amended Subsec. (b)(1) to insert Subpara. designators (A) and (C) to (F), add reference to provisions of Sec. 53a-54b in effect prior to April 25, 2012, re capital felony in Subpara. (A) and add Subpara. (B) re murder with special circumstances under Sec. 53a-54b, effective April 25, 2012; P.A. 13-3 amended Subsecs. (b)(2), (c) and (e) to delete provisions re deduction for risk reduction credit earned under Sec. 18-98e, effective July 1, 2013; P.A. 13-247 amended Subsecs. (d) and (e) by changing “shall” to “may” re hearing by board to determine suitability for parole release, adding provisions re board to document specific reasons for not holding a hearing and re no person to be released on parole without receiving a hearing, and making technical changes, effective July 1, 2013; P.A. 15-84 amended Subsecs. (a), (d) and (e) by replacing “aggregate sentence” with “total effective sentence”, adding new Subsec. (f) re person convicted of one or more crimes committed while the person was under 18 years of age, redesignating existing Subsec. (f) as Subsec. (g), and making a technical change; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 15-2 amended Subsec. (a) by adding new Subdiv. (1) re parole in accordance with Sec. 54-125i and by designating existing provision re discretion of panel of the board as Subdiv. (2) and amending same to delete provision re panel for the institution in which person is confined, redesignate existing Subdivs. (1) and (2) as Subparas. (A) and (B) and make a technical change, and amended Subsec. (e) by adding provisions re possession of complete file for applicant and certification by each member that all documentation has been reviewed, effective July 1, 2015; P.A. 23-169 amended Subsec. (f)(4)(C) by adding whether person applied for or received a sentence modification as a consideration whether person has demonstrated substantial rehabilitation, added new Subsec. (g) re sentenced for 1 or more crimes on or before October 1, 2005, for crimes committed by a person under 21 years of age and redesignated existing Subsec. (g) as Subsec. (h); P.A. 24-24 made a technical change in Subsec. (g)(2). Broad discretionary nature of statute does not grant inmate the right to parole eligibility after serving one half of sentence and there is no liberty interest in parole release. 281 C. 241. Holding in Miller v. Alabama , 132 S. Ct. 2455, applies retroactively to cases on collateral review; life sentence for a juvenile includes a sentence of 50 years or more. 317 C. 52. Neither the substantive, parole eligibility calculation, nor the procedural, hearing, changes under the 2013 amendments to section altered the fundamental fact that the determination whether to grant an inmate parole is entirely at the discretion of the board; where an inmate has no vested liberty interest in parole itself, then it follows that the procedure by which the board exercises its discretion to award or deny the petitioner parole does not implicate a vested liberty interest. 326 C. 357. Board of Parole did not abuse discretion where there was misinterpretation of statute concerning parole eligibility unless petitioner served more time as a result of misinterpretation. 96 CA 26. Cited. 44 CS 417. Subsec. (b): Requirement under Subdiv. (2) that a person shall remain ineligible for parole until completing not less than 85 per cent of the definite sentence imposed not applicable to persons who committed offenses prior to July 1, 1996. 258 C. 804. Cited. Id., 830. 2013 amendment to Subdiv. (2) eliminating risk reduction credit from calculation of violent offender parole eligibility violates ex post facto clause as applied retroactively to petitioner who was convicted after 2011 but prior to such amendment, see also 330 C. 486. 330 C. 462. Defendant's guilty plea for murder charge remains effective, even when trial court, in accepting guilty plea, failed to advise defendant that murder conviction would make him ineligible for parole pursuant to Subdiv. (1), as long as record indicates that defendant understood actual sentencing possibilities. 53 CA 90. Petitioner alleged sufficient facts to make a colorable showing that he would serve more prison time as result of Board of Pardons and Paroles application of revised section, as amended by Jan. Sp. Sess. P.A. 08-1, that specified he would not be eligible for parole until he served 85 per cent, rather than 50 per cent, of his sentence. 121 CA 1. Change to subsection removing potential of using earned risk reduction credits to advance the date petitioner could be eligible for parole does not violate the constitutional ex post facto prohibition since it has no bearing on the punishment petitioner's criminal conduct exposed him to. 177 CA 71. Subsec. (f): Section has the legal effect of altering defendant's punishment so that he no longer will serve life, or its equivalent, in prison without the possibility of parole, thus, if a defendant has the possibility of parole, there is no violation under Miller and resentencing is not required. 333 C. 378. Section does not violate the separation of powers doctrine by improperly delegating sentencing powers to the board. Id. Subdiv. (1): When a defendant is serving more than one definite sentence, the defendant's parole eligibility date for purposes of Subdiv. is calculated on the basis of the aggregate term of the definite sentences. 341 C. 97. Parole hearing under section offers a constitutionally adequate remedy to juvenile offenders who are facing life without parole or its functional equivalent and who were entitled to be, but were not, sentenced with consideration of the mitigating factors of youth as required by Miller v. Alabama , 132 S. Ct. 2455. 167 CA 744. The meaningful textual differences between the Subsecs. at issue in Baker, 281 C. 241, and Perez, 326 C. 357, and this Subsec. leads to conclusion that legislature intended to vest petitioner with cognizable liberty interest in parole eligibility under this Subsec. 199 CA 575. Section does not violate equal protection clause because, even assuming arguendo that twenty year old offenders are similarly situated to juvenile offenders, the legislature had a rational basis for treating the two groups differently. 219 CA 228.
Nearby Sections
15
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
Connecticut § 54-125a, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ct/54-125a.