State v. Williams-Bey

Summary

The court held that a juvenile offender whose original sentence was imposed without consideration of youth-related mitigating factors is not entitled to resentencing under the Connecticut Constitution when subsequent legislation makes the offender eligible for parole. The court assumed, without deciding, that the state constitution could require consideration of those factors, but concluded that parole eligibility is an adequate remedy. The judgment affirming dismissal of the motion to correct an illegal sentence was affirmed. A dissent would have held that the mandatory minimum sentence was unconstitutional as applied to a juvenile and that parole eligibility could not substitute for a constitutionally adequate sentencing hearing.