Title: State v. McCleese (Concurrence)

State: connecticut

Issuer: Connecticut Supreme Court

Document:

*********************************************** 
The “officially released” date that appears near the be-
ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-
lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 
released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-
ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions 
and petitions for certification is the “officially released” 
date appearing in the opinion. 
 
All opinions are subject to modification and technical 
correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut 
Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of 
discrepancies between the advance release version of an 
opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 
Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports 
or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to 
be considered authoritative. 
 
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the 
opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and 
bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the 
Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not 
be reproduced and distributed without the express written 
permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica-
tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 
*********************************************** 
STATE v. McCLEESE—CONCURRENCE
PALMER, J., concurring. I agree with and therefore
join the majority opinion. I write separately only to note
that, as I read the opinion of the dissenting justice,
that opinion seems to be predicated on principles of
fundamental fairness. These principles are violated, the
dissenting justice suggests, when a juvenile is sentenced
to life in prison or its functional equivalent—even if the
juvenile is later afforded the opportunity for parole in
satisfaction of the requirements of the eighth amend-
ment—if the sentencing judge did not expressly con-
sider the mitigating factors of youth. Those principles,
however, are not so much rooted in the eighth amend-
ment but, rather, in the due process clauses of the
federal and state constitutions. Because the defendant,
William McCleese, has not raised any such due process
claim, we must await another day to address it.