Anthony A. v. Comm'r of Corr.

4 Citing cases

  1. Urban v. Quiros

    3:21-cv-00919 (OAW) (D. Conn. Jul. 6, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    In December 2021, Defendant Quiros changed Plaintiff's SOTNS to “0/H,” which indicated that he had a hearing pending after the Connecticut Supreme Court decision in Anthony A. v. Comm'r of Correction, 339 Conn. 290 (Conn. June 17, 2021).Id. at ¶ 161.

  2. Holley v. Cook

    Civil Action 3:20cv170 (MPS) (D. Conn. Nov. 15, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    A recent ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court in another case, together with subsequent action in Holley's own state court habeas case, however, have mooted any need for such relief. In Anthony A. v. Comm'r of Correction, No. 20499, 2021 WL 2492759, at *14 (Conn. June 17, 2021), the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the DOC had violated both the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article First, section 9, of the Connecticut Constitution by failing to afford adequate process to an inmate who received an elevated STN score on the basis of nonconviction information.

  3. State v. Samuel U.

    348 Conn. 304 (Conn. 2023)   Cited 2 times
    Recognizing that, in certain contexts, trial court must make "factual findings … when determining the admissibility of evidence"

    We give broad deference on these matters in part because they are evidentiary questions that do not implicate due process rights. Compare State v. Patrick M ., 344 Conn. 565, 600, 280 A.3d 461 (2022) ("[w]e defer to the ruling of the trial court because of its unique position to [observe] the context in which particular evidentiary issues arise" (internal quotation marks omitted)), with Anthony A . v. Commissioner of Correction , 339 Conn. 290, 311–12, 260 A.3d 1199 (2021) ("procedural due process rights [present] a question of law over which our review is plenary"). Not only is our determination that the defendant's claim does not implicate any constitutional right consistent with our own case law, but our research reveals that it is in line with the conclusion of every court that has analyzed whether the federal constitution compels any particular notice based due process procedures before admitting evidence of other misconduct.

  4. State v. Webber

    225 Conn. App. 16 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    We recognize that the skepticism expressed in the legislative history in 1995 regarding sex offender treatment has been largely debunked. See McKunev. Lite, 536 U.S. 24, 33, 122 S. Ct. 2017, 153 L. Ed. 2d 47 (2002) ("[t]herapists and correctional officers widely agree that clinical rehabilitative programs can enable sex offenders to manage their impulses and in this way reduce recidivism"); Anthony A. v. Commissioner of Correction, 339 Conn. 290, 324, 260 A 3d 1199 (2021) (same). Nevertheless, we are not at liberty to disregard the legislature’s staled purpose for adopting the law that it did.