AC44630 - State v. Gonzalez (“On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly
determined that No. 18-63, § 2, of the 2018 Public Acts (P.A. 18-63), which
amended General Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 54-125e (b) to require that a trial
court determine that a period of special parole is necessary to ensure public
safety before imposing a period of special parole, did not retroactively apply
to his 2017 sentence. See General Statutes § 54-125e (b) (1). Specifically, the
defendant claims that (1) § 54-125e, as amended by § 2 of P.A. 18-63, is a
procedural statute presumed to apply retroactively, and (2) the legislature,
through passing § 2 of P.A. 18-63, intended to clarify § 54-125e, rather than
change the law. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC44806 - State v. Turner (“On appeal, the defendant claims (1) that the court erred
in dismissing his motion to correct an illegal sentence, in which he alleged
that the sentencing court made materially false assumptions about his potential
for rehabilitation, for failure to state a colorable claim, and (2) he is
entitled to an evidentiary hearing to present expert testimony on juvenile
brain science in support of his motion to correct. We agree with the defendant’s
contention that the court improperly dismissed his motion to correct on the
ground that he failed to state a colorable claim but, nevertheless, conclude
that the defendant was not entitled to a new sentencing hearing on the basis of
the ground alleged in his motion. Additionally, we disagree with the
defendant’s assertion that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
Accordingly, the form of the trial court’s judgment is improper in that the
court should have denied, rather than dismissed, the defendant’s motion to
correct an illegal sentence.”)