Court Opinion

ID: 9966174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 12:01:48.918829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:40.620286
License: Public Domain

************************************************
   The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially released” date appearing in the opinion.
   All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecti-
cut 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
an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Jour-
nal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or
Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the
Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may
not be reproduced or distributed without the express
written permission of the Commission on Official Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Page 0                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                    0, 0

         2                         ,0                           0 Conn. App. 1
                            Reed v. Commissioner of Correction

                    DORAINE REED v. COMMISSIONER
                           OF CORRECTION
                              (AC 46226)
                                 Alvord, Elgo and Keller, Js.

                                           Syllabus

         The petitioner appealed from the judgment of the habeas court denying
            her amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the
            application to her of an administrative directive amended by the respon-
            dent, the Commissioner of Correction, that changed the calculation of
            credit that inmates may earn under the risk reduction earned credit
            program established by statute (§ 18-98e) violated the ex post facto
            clause of the United States constitution. Held that the petitioner could
            not prevail on her claim that the application to her of the administrative
            directive violated the ex post facto clause of the United States constitu-
            tion as, pursuant to Rios v. Commissioner of Correction (224 Conn.
            App. 350), the administrative directive in question did not constitute a
            law within the meaning of the ex post facto clause and, thus, she could
            not establish an ex post facto violation.
                     Argued January 3—officially released May 7, 2024

                                     Procedural History

           Amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
         brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of
         Tolland and tried to the court, M. Murphy, J.; judgment
         denying the petition, from which the petitioner, on the
         granting of certification, appealed to this court.
         Affirmed.
            Doraine Reed, self-represented, the appellant (peti-
         tioner).
           Diaghilev Lubin-Farnell, assistant attorney general,
         with whom were Patrick Ring and Zenobia Graham-
         Days, assistant attorneys general, and, on the brief,
         William Tong, attorney general, for the appellee
         (respondent).
                                           Opinion

           PER CURIAM. The self-represented petitioner, Doraine
         Reed, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court
0, 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                      Page 1

       0 Conn. App. 1                                  ,0                            3
                           Reed v. Commissioner of Correction

       denying her amended petition for a writ of habeas cor-
       pus. Her appeal concerns an administrative directive
       amended by the respondent, the Commissioner of Cor-
       rection, in 2016, which changed the calculation of credit
       that inmates may earn under the risk reduction earned
       credit program established by General Statutes § 18-
       98e. See Conn. Dept. of Correction, Administrative
       Directive 4.2A (effective February 1, 2016).1 On appeal,
       the petitioner contends that the application of that
       administrative directive to her violates the ex post facto
       clause of the United States constitution.2
         Resolution of the petitioner’s claim is controlled by
       Rios v. Commissioner of Correction, 224 Conn. App.
       350,     A.3d     (2024). In Rios, this court concluded
       that, because Administrative Directive 4.2A, as
       amended, did not constitute a law within the meaning
       of the ex post facto clause, the petitioner could not
       establish an ex post facto violation. Id., 353, 375. Bound
       by that precedent; see State v. White, 215 Conn. App.
       273, 304–305, 283 A.3d 542 (2022), cert. denied, 346
       Conn. 918, 291 A.3d 108 (2023); the petitioner’s ex post
       facto challenge must fail.
          The judgment is affirmed.

          1
            The respondent issued Administrative Directive 4.2A in 2013 and
       amended it in 2016. A copy of the amended directive was admitted into
       evidence at the habeas trial.
          2
            In her habeas petition and her appellate brief, the petitioner also vaguely
       alludes to her due process rights without citation to, or discussion of, legal
       authority. It is well established that inmates do not possess a constitutional
       right to be conditionally released prior to the expiration of their sentences.
       See Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex,
       442 U.S. 1, 7, 99 S. Ct. 2100, 60 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1979). Our Supreme Court
       likewise has held that an inmate has no cognizable liberty interest in credit
       potentially earned pursuant to § 18-98e. See Perez v. Commissioner of Cor-
       rection, 326 Conn. 357, 369–72, 163 A.3d 597 (2017). Accordingly, the petition-
       er’s invocation of due process is unavailing.