Free Exhibit - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

A Case 3:00-cv-00720-JCH Document 155 Filed 10/10/2007 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT U
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT mm OU I O D I= uq

Vlhlliam Connelly : No. 3:00CV720(JCH)
v.
Theresa Lantz Oc“lL¤Igél’ lz ZOO ?‘
Addendum to Plaintiffs Memorandum in Qgggsition gg Summary Judgment
In his haste to meet the September 6 briefing deadline for the
memorandum in opposition, the plaintiff, at the conclusion, carelessly borrowed
Attomey Jonathan Tropp's reference to Mgggssey v. 8%, 408 U. S. 471, 489
(1972), as a relevant 0886. Morrissey is inapposite primarily because it relies on
due process analysis. Morrissey does not raise an ex post facto claim. Mo_r;issey
involves parole revocation hearings, not the retroactive application of harsher
laws affecting initial early release eligibility.
A The Ex Post Facto Clause applies to a statutory or policy change that
increases the penalty by which a crime is punishable. gg]; omia Dep'; of
Qorrectiogs y, Morales, 514 U. S. 499, 506 n. $(1995). A new law or policy is
violative of ex post facto law (1) when it is retroactive, i. e., when it applies to
events occurring before its enactment and (2) when it disadvantages the offender
. affected by it. Weaver v. Qggham, 450 U. S. 24, 29 (1981). `I'he matter is whether
the statute or regulation in practice fundamentally alters the review of early
release applications. Qmer v. gones, 529 U. S. 244, 256 (2000). The presence
of discretion does not displace the protections of the Ex Post Facto Clause. ld. at
253. Prisoners are entitled to know the range f punishments available, so that

C Case 3:00-cv-00720-JCH Document 155 Filed 10/10/2007 Page 2 of 3
they can bargain effectively. _Qg@r held that the Ex Post Facto Clause
prohibited the application of retroactive laws to prisoners that would result in a
significant increase in the probability of increased incarceration. ld. at 251. A
sentence that contained the right to early release consideration would give rise to
a constitutional expectation that the guidelines extant at the time of the crime
would be applied. ld. at 250.
The relevant criterion for determining the applicability of ex post facto
analysis is the effect of new policies on eligibility for reduced imprisonment,
rather than on any Hxed guarantee of release. Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U. S. 433,
445 (1997). The early release policy in Mgggg affected merely the interval
between the first and second parole hearings, and the group affected, multiple
murderers, had such a minimal possibility of release that the Supreme Court saw
’ no ex post facto violation. ld. at 507. ln ggthe Court rejected the state's
argument that the constitutional provision could not have been violated because
the change in the law did not affect the total effective sentence. Citing _\L_V_egrg;,
C supra, at 32, the court explained that ex post facto is implicated where a
prisoners eligibility for reduced imprisonment is a significant factor entering into
both the defendanfs decision to plea bargain and the judge's calculation of the
sentence. at 445-46.
In the instant case, the plaintiffs eligibility for early release under the
statute, section 18—100(e)(1989), and the controlling administrative directive, A.
D. 1.6, arises before the half point mark of the sentence, and subsequent
statutes and regulations were clearly disadvantageous to the plaintiff. This and

‘ Case 3:00-cv-00720-JCH Document 155 Filed 10/10/2007 Page 3 of 3
other disputed issues of material fact stand between the parties and, therefore,
summary judgment should not be granted.

Vlhlliam Connelly
#189009 ‘
Enfield Correctional Institution .
289 Shaker Road
Enfield, CT 06082
Certification.
This is to certify that a copy of this addendum to the memorandum was
mailed to Steven R. Strom, Assistant Attomey General, 110 Sherman Street,
Hartford, CT 06105; tel: (860) 808-5450; fa>c (860) 808-5591.
Date: /0 · $0;-
4% cl/-—-
V\Hlliam Connelly