DocketNumber: No. 559440
Citation Numbers: 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 3615
Judges: JOSEPH J. PURTILL, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
Filed Date: 3/27/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
For reasons hereinafter stated, the petition is dismissed.
It is petitioner's claim that he has completed his sentences, he should be discharged from custody, and he is being held in violation of his rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Connecticut.
From the evidence, it is found that on January 8, 1980, petitioner received an indeterminate sentence of not less than 25 years and not more than life after being convicted of the crime of murder in violation of Connecticut General Statutes §
The January 8, 1980 sentence was imposed in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes §
On August 22, 1996, while petitioner was still serving the 25 years to life sentence, he was awarded parole on the consecutive sentences. He remained incarcerated under the 25 years to life sentence while on this parole. The effect of this parole was to allow him to serve the consecutive sentences while he was serving his original sentence. Petitioner would then be eligible for parole after he had served the consecutive sentences, which were now in effect concurrent.
Petitioner was denied parole on April 2, 1998 and a date of February, 2000 was set as the date for his next hearing.
Upon being informed that petitioner would be eligible for parole prior to the February, 2000 date, the consecutive sentences having been served by that time, he was given a new hearing on July 21, 1998. At this hearing, petitioner was awarded parole effective November 1, 1999. On January 27, 2000, while he was on parole, petitioner was arrested by the New London Police. He was charged with motor vehicle offenses and a marijuana offense. Petitioner's parole supervisor was notified. After an investigation and a hearing, it was determined that petitioner had violated the terms of his parole. There is no claim that the violation proceedings violated petitioner's rights to due process and there is no evidence of such violation.
After the parole violation determination, petitioner was returned to the custody of respondent to serve the balance of his life sentence. Petitioner's present situation is that, because of the action of the parole board, he has been discharged from the consecutive sentences. He is at present serving the sentence which will last for the rest of his natural life. He is eligible for parole on this sentence. The allegations of the petition and the claim that petitioner has served his sentence and is being held in custody illegally have not been proven. CT Page 3617
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Joseph J. Purtill Judge Trial Referee