AGO 1990-032.

• Court: Connecticut

Connecticut Attorney General Opinions 1990. AGO 1990-032. 1990Opinion No. 1990-032Mr. Henry A. Bissonnette, Jr.ChairmanConnecticut Board of Parole90 Brainard RoadHartford, CT 06114 Dear Mr. Bissonnette: In your letter of August 9, 1990, you call our attention to the provisions of P.A. 90-261, Sec. 5 and ask our advice with regard to the following two questions: 1. Does Section 5 of the Act apply retroactively, i.e., are all persons incarcerated "as of" October 1, 1990 who meet all other specified criteria, eligible to be considered for parole under the Act. 2. Does the Act permit the Board to consider for parole persons who are already serving their sentences in either Community Release or Community Residence (SHR) programs. For reasons elaborated upon below, our answer to each question is in the affirmative. P.A. 90-261, Sec. 5 provides, in relevant part, that: (a) A person convicted of a felony who is incarcerated on or after October 1, 1990, who received a definite sentence of more than one year, and who has been confined under such sentence for not less than one-half of the sentence imposed by the court, may be allowed to go at large on parole in the discretion of the panel of the board of parole for the institution in which the person is confined, if§.§.§.§. Your first question asks whether the phrase "person convicted of a felony who is incarcerated on or after October 1, 1990" limits eligibility for parole consideration to those who are chronologically incarcerated for a felony conviction on or after that date, or, whether such eligibility extends to those who were so convicted and incarcerated prior to that date and remain so incarcerated on October 1, 1990. Conn. Gen. Stat. e 55-3 provides that "[n]o provision of the general statutes, not previously contained in the statutes of the state, which imposes any new obligation on any person or corporation, shall be construed to have a retrospective effect." (Underlining added.) In considering the retroactivity of a statute, "[i]t is important to note at the outset that the mere fact that a statute is retrospective does not by itself render it invalid§.§.§.§. Thus, General Statutes, Sec. 55-3§.§.§.§establishes a rule of presumed legislative intent§.§.§.§rather than a rule of law. If a legislative enactment contains language which unequivocally and certainly embraces existing...