Argued
October 15, 2018
Appeal
from Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford,
Alexander, J.
Page 712
Heather Clark, assigned counsel, for the appellant
(defendant).
Michele
C. Lukban, senior assistant states attorney, with whom, on
the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, states attorney, and Vicki
Melchiorre, supervisory assistant states attorney, for the
appellee (state).
George
Jepsen, former attorney general, Steven R. Strom, assistant
attorney general, and Leland J. Moore filed a brief for the
Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles as amicus curiae.
S. Max
Simmons and Marsha L. Levick filed a brief for the Juvenile
Law Center as amicus curiae.
Michael
S. Taylor and James P. Sexton, Hartford, filed a brief for
the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association as
amicus curiae.
Palmer,
McDonald, DAuria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js.
OPINION
DAURIA,
J.
[333
Conn. 470] Under the federal constitutions prohibition on
cruel and unusual punishments, a juvenile offender cannot
serve a sentence of imprisonment for life, or its functional
equivalent, without the possibility of parole, unless his age
and the hallmarks of adolescence have been considered as
mitigating factors. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460,
476-77, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407');">183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012); Casiano
v. Commissioner of Correction, 317 Conn. 52, 60-61, 115
A.3d 1031 (2015), cert. denied sub nom. Semple v.
Casiano, __ U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 1364, 194 L.Ed.2d 376
(2016); State v. Riley, 315 Conn. 637, 641, 110 A.3d
1205 (2015), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 1361, 194
L.Ed.2d 376 (2016). The defendant, Tauren Williams-Bey, is
presently serving a sentence of thirty-five years
imprisonment, and, pursuant to No. 15-84 of the 2015 Public
Acts (P.A. 15-84), codified at General Statutes § 54-125a,
has the possibility of parole after twenty-one years in
prison. His original sentence of thirty-five years without
parole was imposed without consideration of his age or
Page 713
the hallmarks of adolescence. The defendant does not claim
that this sentence violates the federal constitution. Rather,
he claims that it violates the Connecticut constitution and
that he must be resentenced, even after P.A. 15-84 later made
him parole eligible. On the basis of our decision in
State v. McCleese, 333 Conn. 378, __ A.3d __ (2019),
which we also release today, we conclude that the defendant
is not entitled to resentencing.
[333
Conn. 471] The following facts and procedural history are
relevant to the present appeal. The defendant is currently
imprisoned for murder. He was sixteen years old when he and
two friends shot and killed the victim. The defendant pleaded
guilty to murder as an accessory, in violation of General
Statutes (Rev. to 1997) § 53a-54a and General Statutes §
53a-8. The parties waived the presentence investigation
report, and the record does not reveal that the court
otherwise considered the defendants age and the hallmarks of
adolescence as mitigating factors at sentencing. In
accordance with the plea agreement, the court imposed a
sentence of thirty-five years imprisonment. At the time of
sentencing, the crime of which the defendant was ...