*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 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 the opinion as it appears 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 reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** IAN WRIGHT v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 43170) Moll, Suarez and DiPentima, Js. Syllabus The petitioner, a Jamaican national who previously had been convicted of various crimes, including murder, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claim- ing that his federal and state constitutional rights to due process were violated when he was denied a deportation parole eligibility hearing pursuant to statute (§ 54-125d (c)) after serving 50 percent of his sen- tence. The habeas court rendered judgment dismissing the habeas peti- tion, concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner had no liberty interest in a deportation parole eligibility hear- ing. The habeas court denied the petition for certification to appeal, and the petitioner appealed to this court. Held that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal, that court having properly determined that the petitioner lacked a liberty interest in a deportation parole eligibility hearing pursuant to § 54-125d; the due process clause does not provide the petitioner with a constitutionally protected liberty interest in a deportation parole hear- ing, as there is no constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence; furthermore, § 54-125d did not create a liberty interest in parole eligibility or a parole eligibility hearing as the mandatory language ‘‘shall,’’ used in § 54-125d (c), was inapplicable to the petitioner and is limited to those persons whose eligibility for parole is restricted pursuant to a different statute (§ 54-125a (b) (2)), which does not include the crime for which the petitioner was convicted, namely, murder; moreover, § 54- 125d (b) vests the Department of Correction with discretion over depor- tation parole eligibility determinations and, thus, did not create an ‘‘expectancy of release,’’ but only a possibility of parole; additionally, although a sentencing court may refer a convicted ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals