Title: Ostroski v. Commissioner of Correction
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC18600
State: Connecticut
Issuer: Connecticut Supreme Court
Date: July 5, 2011

******************************************************
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 Connecti-
cut 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 Con-
necticut 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 repro-
duced and distributed without the express written per-
mission
of
the
Commission
on
Official
Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
******************************************************
RICHARD OSTROSKI v. COMMISSIONER OF
CORRECTION
(SC 18600)
Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Palmer, Zarella, McLachlan, Eveleigh and
Harper, Js.
Submitted on briefs—officially released July 5, 2011
Damon A. R. Kirschbaum, filed a brief for the appel-
lant (petitioner).
Madeline A. Melchionne and Terrence M. O’Neill,
assistant attorneys general, George Jepsen, attorney
general, and Richard Blumenthal, former attorney gen-
eral, filed a brief for the appellee (respondent).
Opinion
PER CURIAM. The sole issue in this appeal1 is
whether General Statutes § 53a-35b, which defines a
sentence of life imprisonment as a term of sixty years,
applies to the sentence of the petitioner, Richard
Ostroski, who committed the offense prior to July 1,
1981, the effective date of § 53a-35b, but was sentenced
after that date. The petitioner contends that the habeas
court improperly rejected his challenge to his indetermi-
nate sentence on the basis of that court’s conclusion
that the statute only applies prospectively. This court
recently rejected an identical argument advanced by
the petitioner in Castonguay v. Commissioner of Cor-
rection, 300 Conn. 649, 16 A.3d 676 (2011), a case that
is indistinguishable from the present case as to the
material facts. Because Castonguay controls, which the
petitioner in the present case concedes, the appeal is
dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed.
1 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 § 65-1.