State v. Coltherst

341 Conn. 97

266 A.3d 838

STATE of Connecticut

v.Jamaal COLTHERST

SC 20401

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 30, 2021

Officially released October 13, 2021^*

Michael W. Brown, West Hartford, for the appellant (defendant).

Jennifer F. Miller, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Sharmese L. Walcott, state's attorney, and Vicki Melchiorre, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Kahn, Ecker and Keller, Js.

KELLER, J.

In this certified appeal,¹ the defendant, Jamaal Coltherst, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial court, which resentenced him for crimes he committed in 1999, when he was seventeen years old. In his original brief to this court, the defendant claimed that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court followed the statutory requirements of General Statutes § 54-91g in resentencing him to eighty years of incarceration.² He argued that the statute created a presumption against the imposition of an effective life sentence, which can be overcome only upon the court's finding that the defendant is incorrigible. Because we conclude, as we explain in this opinion, that § 54-91g does not apply to the defendant, we do not reach the issue of whether the Appellate Court correctly concluded that the trial court followed the statutory requirements of § 54-91g in resentencing the defendant to a term of eighty years of incarceration.

Following oral argument, this court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing two issues: First, "[d]oes [§] 54-91g apply in cases where, as here, the defendant was not charged as a child and transferred from the docket for juvenile matters to the regular criminal docket of the Superior Court pursuant to [ General Statutes §] 46b-127 but, rather, [was] charged as an adult under the regular criminal docket of the Superior Court?" Second, "[i]s the defendant eligible for parole when he received two distinct total effective sentences of 85 years and 80 years, respectively, to run consecutively, and, if so, when is he eligible for parole on each case?" As to the second issue, we conclude, consistent with an affidavit submitted by Richard Sparaco, the executive director of the Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles (board), that the defendant will be eligible for parole after serving 30 years of the 165 year aggregate term of the two distinct total effective sentences that he is currently serving. As to the first issue, we conclude that § 54-91g does not apply to the defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The following facts and procedural background are relevant to the resolution of this appeal. This case arose from the October 15, 1999 carjacking, kidnapping, and murder of the victim, Kyle Holden, by the defendant and Carl Johnson. See State v. Coltherst , 263 Conn. 478, 485–86, 820 A.2d 1024 (2003). On the day that the defendant was released from juvenile detention, where he had been incarcerated for violating probation after having been convicted on charges of assault in the third degree, the defendant and Johnson planned to commit a carjacking.

Id., at 483–84, 820 A.2d 1024. They scouted out various locations and potential targets before settling on the victim, whose car was parked outside an exotic dance club in East Hartford. Id., at 484–85, 820 A.2d 1024. When the victim exited the club, Johnson held a gun to his head, and Johnson and the defendant forced the victim into his car. Id., at 485, 820 A.2d 1024. Johnson then drove the car to an automated teller machine (ATM), while the defendant, who held the gun, sat with the victim in the backseat. Id. They used the victim's bank card to withdraw money from the ATM and then brought the victim to a nearby entrance ramp to Interstate 84, where Johnson shot the victim in the head, killing him almost instantly. Id., at 485–86, 820 A.2d 1024. Over the next eight days, the defendant and Johnson continued to use the victim's car and made withdrawals from his bank account using his bank card. Id., at 486, 820 A.2d 1024. Thereafter, they were arrested by the police, who had been on the lookout for the victim's car after the victim was reported missing. See id., at 486–87, 820 A.2d 1024.

Because the defendant was seventeen years old at the time he committed these crimes, he was tried as an adult under the then applicable law. See General Statutes (Rev. to 1999) § 46b-120 (1) (limiting, as general rule, for purposes of delinquency, definition of "child" to persons under sixteen years of age at time of offense). "After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of capital felony, murder, felony murder, kidnapping in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, larceny in the first degree, conspiracy to commit kidnapping in the first degree, and larceny in the fourth degree. The trial court merged the convictions of capital felony, murder, felony murder and kidnapping in the first degree and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release on the capital felony count, twenty years imprisonment on the count of robbery in the first degree, ten years imprisonment on the count of robbery in the second degree, twenty years imprisonment on the count of larceny in the first degree, twenty years imprisonment on the count of conspiracy to commit kidnapping in the first degree, and one year imprisonment on the count of larceny in the fourth degree, all to be served consecutively to the sentence of life imprisonment, for a total effective sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release followed by seventy-one years [of] imprisonment." State v. Coltherst , supra, 263 Conn. at 487–88, 820 A.2d 1024.

Subsequent to the defendant's original sentencing, significant changes in juvenile sentencing law prompted the resentencing proceedings that are the subject of this appeal. We recently summarized the effect of those changes: "Under the federal constitution's prohibition [against] 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 (2012) ; Casiano v. Commissioner of Correction , 317 Conn. 52, 60–61, 115 A.3d 1031 (2015), cert. denied sub nom. Semple v. Casiano , 577 U.S. 1202, 136 S. Ct. 1364, 194 L. Ed. 2d 376 (2016) ; State v. Riley , 315 Conn. 637, 641, 110 A.3d 1205 (2015), cert. denied, 577 U.S. 1202, 136 S. Ct. 1361, 194 L. Ed. 2d 376 (2016)."

State v. Williams-Bey , 333 Conn. 468, 470, 215 A.3d 711 (2019). The United States Supreme Court has held that Miller applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. Montgomery v. Louisiana , 577 U.S. 190, 206, 136 S. Ct. 718, 193 L. Ed. 2d 599 (2016). The court clarified, however, that "[g]iving Miller retroactive effect ... does not require [s]tates to relitigate sentences, let alone convictions, in every case [in which] a juvenile offender received mandatory life without parole. A [s]tate may remedy a Miller violation by permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole, rather than by resentencing them." Id., at 212, 136 S. Ct. 718.

To comply with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Miller , as well as this court's decisions in Riley and Casiano , the legislature enacted No. 15-84 of the 2015 Public Acts (P.A. 15-84). Section 1 of P.A. 15-84, codified at General Statutes § 54-125a (f) (1), ensures parole eligibility for all persons convicted of crimes committed when they were under eighteen years of age who received a sentence of ten years or more.³ Section 2 of P.A. 15-84, codified at § 54-91g, requires a sentencing court to consider, inter alia, the "the hallmark features of adolescence" and the differences between the brain development of a child and an adult when sentencing a child who has been convicted of a class A or B felony following transfer of the child's case from the docket for juvenile matters to the regular criminal docket of the Superior Court.

The defendant became eligible for resentencing pursuant to § 6 of P.A. 15-84, which repealed General Statutes § 53a-46a, the capital felony provision, pursuant to which the defendant had been sentenced. The substitute provision, codified at General Statutes (Supp. 2016) § 53a-46a, made persons who committed a capital felony when they were under eighteen years of age ineligible for the death penalty.⁴ The passage of P.A. 15-84, therefore, rendered the defendant's capital felony conviction invalid.⁵ Relying on that change in the law, the defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

He sought to have his conviction of capital felony vacated and argued that, upon resentencing, § 54-91g (a) (1) required the trial court to consider his age at the time of the offense, the hallmark features of adolescence, and any scientific and psychological evidence showing the developmental differences between child and adult brains. He also argued that § 54-91g (a) (2) required the court, if it proposed to sentence him to a lengthy sentence under which he would be likely to die while incarcerated, to consider how the factors listed in subsection (a) (1) counseled against such a sentence.

At the hearing on the defendant's motion, neither the state nor the trial court questioned the defendant's reliance on § 54-91g. In resentencing the defendant, the court considered the mitigating factors of youth but also took into account the horrific nature of the crimes, the defendant's level of involvement in them, his criminal history, his attempts to deflect blame for his crimes, and his disciplinary record in prison. The court dismissed the counts of capital felony and felony murder,...