******************************************************

The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the

beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will

be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the

date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative

date for the beginning of all time periods for filing

postopinion motions and petitions for certification is

the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion.

In no event will any such motions be accepted before

the ‘‘officially released’’ date.

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 electronic version

of an opinion and the print version appearing in the

Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

latest print version is to be considered authoritative.

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying

the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official

Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service

and 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

Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.

******************************************************
DANIEL WEBB v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(SC 18857)

Rogers, C. J., and Palmer, Eveleigh, McDonald, Espinosa and Vertefeuille, Js.

Argued October 22, 2013—officially released July 26, 2016

Michael O. Sheehan, with whom was Richard A.

Reeve, for the appellant (petitioner).

Timothy J. Sugrue, assistant state’s attorney, and

Harry Weller, senior assistant state’s attorney, with

whom, on the brief, were Kevin T. Kane, chief state’s

attorney, Matthew A. Weiner, assistant state’s attorney,

and Michael E. O’Hare, former senior assistant state’s

attorney, for the appellee (respondent).

Hope R. Metcalf and Constance de la Vega, pro hac

vice, filed a brief for certain experts on international

human rights and comparative law as amici curiae.

Alex V. Hernandez and Brian W. Stull filed a brief

for certain legal historians and scholars as amici curiae.
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Daniel Webb, raises

the following two claims on appeal: (1) whether the

habeas court properly denied his petition for a writ of

habeas corpus; and (2) whether the legislature’s prospective repeal of the death penalty in No. 12-5 of the

2012 Public Acts (P.A. 12-5) rendered the death penalty,

as applied to the petitioner and other defendants sentenced to death for capital felonies committed prior to

the effective date of P.A. 12-5, unconstitutional under

the state and federal constitutions. The petitioner’s second claim is governed by this court’s decisions in State

v. Santiago, 318 Conn. 1, 9–10, 119, 122 A.3d 1 (2015),

and State v. Peeler, 321 Conn. 375, 377, A.3d

(2016), in which this court concluded and reaffirmed,

respectively, that the imposition of the death penalty

on defendants sentenced to death for capital felonies

committed before the effective date of P.A. 12-5 would

be unconstitutional under the Connecticut constitution.

Accordingly, we conclude that the judgment of the

habeas court must be reversed on this ground and that

the case must be remanded to the habeas court with

direction to orderthe trial courtto resentence the defendant according to law.

The record reveals the following procedural history.

After a jury trial, the petitioner was found guilty of

capital felony and other crimes arising from, inter alia,

the kidnapping and murder of the victim in the city of

Hartford in 1989.1 See State v. Webb, 238 Conn. 389,

392–94, 397–98, 680 A.2d 147 (1996). After a separate

penalty phase hearing before the same jury, the petitioner was sentenced to death. Id., 394, 396. The petitioner appealed to this court from his conviction and

death sentence. Id., 392–94. This court affirmed the

judgment of the trial court in all respects but remanded

the case to the trial court for consideration of the petitioner’s claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that

death by lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual

punishment under the state constitution. See id., 396–

97, 488–89, 551. On remand, the trial court concluded

that the petitioner had failed to satisfy his burden of

proving that death by lethal injection is unconstitutional. See State v. Webb, SuperiorCourt, judicial district

of Hartford, Docket No. HHD-CR-50492 (July 7, 1998)

(22 Conn. L. Rptr. 369, 370). The petitioner appealed

again to this court, and we again affirmed the judgment

of the trial court. State v. Webb, 252 Conn. 128, 130,

147, 750 A.2d 448, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 835, 121 S. Ct.

93, 148 L. Ed. 2d 53 (2000). Thereafter, the petitioner

filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he

raised several challenges to his death sentence.2 The

habeas court denied the petition. This appeal followed.3

After the appeal was filed, we granted permission to

the petitioner to file a supplemental brief on the issue

of whether the legislature’s enactment of P.A. 12-5 ren-
dered the death penalty, as applied to him and other

defendants sentenced to death for capital crimes committed before the effective date of the legislation,

unconstitutional under the state and federal constitutions.

While this appeal was pending, this court issued its

decision in Santiago, in which a majority of this court

concluded that the enactment of P.A. 12-5 rendered the

death penalty unconstitutional under the state constitution with respect to defendants who had been sentenced

to death for capital felonies committed before the effective date of the legislation. See State v. Santiago, supra,

318 Conn. 9–10, 119. In Peeler, a majority of this court

concluded that the decision in Santiago should be

upheld. See State v. Peeler, supra, 321 Conn. 377.

Accordingly, we agree with the defendant that the death

penalty is unconstitutional as applied to him and that his

petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be granted on

that ground. We therefore reverse the judgment of the

habeas court denying the petitioner’s habeas petition

and remand the case to that court with direction to

render judgment granting the petition and to order the

trial court to resentence the petitioner according to law.

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded

with direction to render judgment granting the petition

for a writ of habeas corpus and to order the trial court

to resentence the petitioner according to law.

1 The defendant was convicted of capital felony in violation of General

Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 53a-54b (5), murder in violation of General Statutes

§ 53a-54a (a), felony murder in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1989)

§ 53a-54c, kidnapping in the first degree in violation of General Statutes

(Rev. to 1989) § 53a-92 (a) (2) (A) and (B), attempt to commit sexual assault

in the first degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) §§ 53a-70

(a) and 53a-49 (a) (2), and criminal possession of a pistol in violation of

General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 53a-217 (a). See State v. Webb, 238 Conn.

389, 392–93, 680 A.2d 147 (1996).

2 For purposes of this appeal, the relevant pleading is the petitioner’s fifth

amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was filed on December

8, 2004.

3 The petitioner appealed from the judgment of the habeas court to the

Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to

General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-2.