Eighth Amendment requirement in Connecticut

2022The trial court reasoned that this standard, rather than the less exacting ‘‘deliber- ate indifference’’ standard of Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 , 97 S. Ct. 285 , 50 L.

2022The plaintiff appealed to this court, claiming that the trial court should have applied the deliberate indifference test adopted in Estelle v. Gamble ( 429 U.S. 97 ).

2022The court subsequently granted certification to appeal from that judgment, and this appeal followed.8 I Before considering the claims raised by the petitioner in this appeal, we first address a threshold question of whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. ‘‘A claim that a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction . . . may be raised at any time during the proceedings, including for the first time on appeal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mangiafico v. Farmington, 331 Conn. 404, 430 , 204 A.3d 1138 (2019). ‘‘Subject matter jurisdiction involves the authority of

2022The court subsequently granted certification to appeal from that judgment, and this appeal followed.8 I Before considering the claims raised by the petitioner in this appeal, we first address a threshold question of whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. ‘‘A claim that a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction . . . may be raised at any time during the proceedings, including for the first time on appeal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mangiafico v. Farmington, 331 Conn. 404, 430 , 204 A.3d 1138 (2019). ‘‘Subject matter jurisdiction involves the authority of

2022The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that the facts alleged by the plaintiff were insufficient to demonstrate malevolent intent by the defen- dants as required for purposes of proving an eighth amendment violation pursuant to Whitley v. Albers ( 475 U.S. 312 ).

2022Ed. 2d 251 (1986), a case involving the alleged use of excessive force by prison officials seeking to quell a prison disturbance, sets forth the applicable standard, which, for purposes of proving an eighth amendment violation, requires evi- dence that prison authorities engaged in the allegedly culpable conduct ‘‘maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 320–21.

2022The court subsequently granted certification to appeal from that judgment, and this appeal followed.8 I Before considering the claims raised by the petitioner in this appeal, we first address a threshold question of whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. ‘‘A claim that a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction . . . may be raised at any time during the proceedings, including for the first time on appeal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mangiafico v. Farmington, 331 Conn. 404, 430 , 204 A.3d 1138 (2019). ‘‘Subject matter jurisdiction involves the authority of

2022The court subsequently granted certification to appeal from that judgment, and this appeal followed.8 I Before considering the claims raised by the petitioner in this appeal, we first address a threshold question of whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. ‘‘A claim that a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction . . . may be raised at any time during the proceedings, including for the first time on appeal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mangiafico v. Farmington, 331 Conn. 404, 430 , 204 A.3d 1138 (2019). ‘‘Subject matter jurisdiction involves the authority of

2019In his reply, the petitioner alleged that his claim was not procedurally defaulted pursuant to State v. Boyd, 323 Conn. 816 , 151 A.3d 355 (2016), and State v. Delgado, 323 Conn. 801 , 151 A.3d 345 (2016), because the trial court did not have jurisdic- tion to hear a claim involving ‘‘mitigating factors associ- ated with a juvenile’s young age’’ in a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

2019In his reply, the petitioner alleged that his claim was not procedurally defaulted pursuant to State v. Boyd, 323 Conn. 816 , 151 A.3d 355 (2016), and State v. Delgado, 323 Conn. 801 , 151 A.3d 345 (2016), because the trial court did not have jurisdic- tion to hear a claim involving ‘‘mitigating factors associ- ated with a juvenile’s young age’’ in a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

2019In his reply, the petitioner alleged that his claim was not procedurally defaulted pursuant to State v. Boyd, 323 Conn. 816 , 151 A.3d 355 (2016), and State v. Delgado, 323 Conn. 801 , 151 A.3d 345 (2016), because the trial court did not have jurisdic- tion to hear a claim involving ‘‘mitigating factors associ- ated with a juvenile’s young age’’ in a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

2019In his reply, the petitioner alleged that his claim was not procedurally defaulted pursuant to State v. Boyd, 323 Conn. 816 , 151 A.3d 355 (2016), and State v. Delgado, 323 Conn. 801 , 151 A.3d 345 (2016), because the trial court did not have jurisdic- tion to hear a claim involving ‘‘mitigating factors associ- ated with a juvenile’s young age’’ in a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

2017The plaintiff first claims that the trial court erred in determining that his claim of sexual harassment against Riccio did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. "[S]exual abuse by a corrections officer can give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim." Crawford v. Cuomo , 796 F.3d 252 , 257 (2d Cir. 2015).

2017The plaintiff first claims that the trial court erred in determining that his claim of sexual harassment against Riccio did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. "[S]exual abuse by a corrections officer can give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim." Crawford v. Cuomo , 796 F.3d 252 , 257 (2d Cir. 2015).

2016He contends that, although the eleventh count of his habeas petition largely relied on Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 , 578, 125 S.Ct. 1183 , 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005), his pleading, read broadly and realistically, included a claim invoking Miller v. Alabama, ---U.S. ----, 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 , 82, 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), which had not been decided by the United States Supreme Court when the petition was filed in 2008. 4 He argues that the eighth amendment claim presents a question of law properly reviewed under a plenary stan

2016He contends that, although the eleventh count of his habeas petition largely relied on Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 , 578, 125 S.Ct. 1183 , 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005), his pleading, read broadly and realistically, included a claim invoking Miller v. Alabama, ---U.S. ----, 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 , 82, 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), which had not been decided by the United States Supreme Court when the petition was filed in 2008. 4 He argues that the eighth amendment claim presents a question of law properly reviewed under a plenary stan

2016He contends that, although the eleventh count of his habeas petition largely relied on Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 , 578, 125 S.Ct. 1183 , 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005), his pleading, read broadly and realistically, included a claim invoking Miller v. Alabama, ---U.S. ----, 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 , 82, 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), which had not been decided by the United States Supreme Court when the petition was filed in 2008. 4 He argues that the eighth amendment claim presents a question of law properly reviewed under a plenary stan

2016He contends that, although the eleventh count of his habeas petition largely relied on Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 , 578, 125 S.Ct. 1183 , 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005), his pleading, read broadly and realistically, included a claim invoking Miller v. Alabama, ---U.S. ----, 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 , 82, 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), which had not been decided by the United States Supreme Court when the petition was filed in 2008. 4 He argues that the eighth amendment claim presents a question of law properly reviewed under a plenary stan

2016"This court previously has recognized that [i]t is not appropriate to review an unpreserved claim of an illegal sentence for the first time on appeal." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Crump, 145 Conn.App. 749 , 766, 75 A.3d 758 , cert. denied, 310 Conn. 947 , 80 A.3d 906 (2013).

2016"This court previously has recognized that [i]t is not appropriate to review an unpreserved claim of an illegal sentence for the first time on appeal." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Crump, 145 Conn.App. 749 , 766, 75 A.3d 758 , cert. denied, 310 Conn. 947 , 80 A.3d 906 (2013).

2016He contends that, although the eleventh count of his habeas petition largely relied on Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 , 578, 125 S.Ct. 1183 , 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005), his pleading, read broadly and realistically, included a claim invoking Miller v. Alabama, ---U.S. ----, 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 , 82, 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), which had not been decided by the United States Supreme Court when the petition was filed in 2008. 4 He argues that the eighth amendment claim presents a question of law properly reviewed under a plenary stan

2016He contends that, although the eleventh count of his habeas petition largely relied on Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 , 578, 125 S.Ct. 1183 , 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005), his pleading, read broadly and realistically, included a claim invoking Miller v. Alabama, ---U.S. ----, 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 , 82, 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), which had not been decided by the United States Supreme Court when the petition was filed in 2008. 4 He argues that the eighth amendment claim presents a question of law properly reviewed under a plenary stan

2015The court identified two lines of United States Supreme Court precedent: (1) cases addressing the proportionality of a sentence of impris- onment for a term of years given all the circumstances in a particular case; see, e.g., Harmelin v. Michigan, supra, 501 U.S. 957 ; Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S. Ct. 3001 , 77 L.

2015The court identified two lines of United States Supreme Court precedent: (1) cases addressing the proportionality of a sentence of impris- onment for a term of years given all the circumstances in a particular case; see, e.g., Harmelin v. Michigan, supra, 501 U.S. 957 ; Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S. Ct. 3001 , 77 L.

2006Estelle v. Gamble, supra, 429 U.S. at 105-106 , 97 S.Ct. 285 . "[D]eliberate indifference" lies "somewhere between the poles of negligence at one end and purpose or knowledge at the other ...." Farmer v. Brennan, supra, 511 U.S. at 836 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 ; see also Smith v. Carpenter, supra, 316 F.3d at 184 .

2006Estelle v. Gamble, supra, 429 U.S. at 105-106 , 97 S.Ct. 285 . "[D]eliberate indifference" lies "somewhere between the poles of negligence at one end and purpose or knowledge at the other ...." Farmer v. Brennan, supra, 511 U.S. at 836 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 ; see also Smith v. Carpenter, supra, 316 F.3d at 184 .

2005It cites no authority in support of its argument that the eighth amendment requirement for heightened reliability in death penalty cases requires the appointment of an amicus curiae in such cases. [1] See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 464 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) ( Katz, J., with whom Norcott, J., joins, dissenting); State v. Ross, 269 Conn. 213, 392-93 , 849 A.2d 648 (2004) ( Norcott, J., dissenting); State v. Breton, 264 Conn. 327, 446-49 , 824 A.2d 778 ( Norcott, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1055 , 124 S.Ct. 819 , 157 L.Ed.2d 708 (2003); State v. Webb, 252 Conn. 128, 147 , 750 A.2

2005It cites no authority in support of its argument that the eighth amendment requirement for heightened reliability in death penalty cases requires the appointment of an amicus curiae in such cases. [1] See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 464 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) ( Katz, J., with whom Norcott, J., joins, dissenting); State v. Ross, 269 Conn. 213, 392-93 , 849 A.2d 648 (2004) ( Norcott, J., dissenting); State v. Breton, 264 Conn. 327, 446-49 , 824 A.2d 778 ( Norcott, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1055 , 124 S.Ct. 819 , 157 L.Ed.2d 708 (2003); State v. Webb, 252 Conn. 128, 147 , 750 A.2

2005Indications from the available evidence suggest that the death penalty has been imposed in a racially discriminatory manner and has been geared toward minorities and the poor."), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 841 , 121 S.Ct. 106 , 148 L.Ed.2d 64 (2000); State v. Webb, 238 Conn. 389, 566-67 , 680 A.2d 147 (1996) ( Norcott, J., dissenting) ("I am persuaded that our statutory scheme for its imposition cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny because that scheme, by its very nature, admits of an unacceptable opportunity for arbitrariness and the influence of racial discrimination to operate in the determ

2005Indications from the available evidence suggest that the death penalty has been imposed in a racially discriminatory manner and has been geared toward minorities and the poor."), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 841 , 121 S.Ct. 106 , 148 L.Ed.2d 64 (2000); State v. Webb, 238 Conn. 389, 566-67 , 680 A.2d 147 (1996) ( Norcott, J., dissenting) ("I am persuaded that our statutory scheme for its imposition cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny because that scheme, by its very nature, admits of an unacceptable opportunity for arbitrariness and the influence of racial discrimination to operate in the determ

2005It cites no authority in support of its argument that the eighth amendment requirement for heightened reliability in death penalty cases requires the appointment of an amicus curiae in such cases. [1] See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 464 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) ( Katz, J., with whom Norcott, J., joins, dissenting); State v. Ross, 269 Conn. 213, 392-93 , 849 A.2d 648 (2004) ( Norcott, J., dissenting); State v. Breton, 264 Conn. 327, 446-49 , 824 A.2d 778 ( Norcott, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1055 , 124 S.Ct. 819 , 157 L.Ed.2d 708 (2003); State v. Webb, 252 Conn. 128, 147 , 750 A.2

2005It cites no authority in support of its argument that the eighth amendment requirement for heightened reliability in death penalty cases requires the appointment of an amicus curiae in such cases. [1] See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 464 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) ( Katz, J., with whom Norcott, J., joins, dissenting); State v. Ross, 269 Conn. 213, 392-93 , 849 A.2d 648 (2004) ( Norcott, J., dissenting); State v. Breton, 264 Conn. 327, 446-49 , 824 A.2d 778 ( Norcott, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1055 , 124 S.Ct. 819 , 157 L.Ed.2d 708 (2003); State v. Webb, 252 Conn. 128, 147 , 750 A.2

2005It cites no authority in support of its argument that the eighth amendment requirement for heightened reliability in death penalty cases requires the appointment of an amicus curiae in such cases. [1] See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 464 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) ( Katz, J., with whom Norcott, J., joins, dissenting); State v. Ross, 269 Conn. 213, 392-93 , 849 A.2d 648 (2004) ( Norcott, J., dissenting); State v. Breton, 264 Conn. 327, 446-49 , 824 A.2d 778 ( Norcott, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1055 , 124 S.Ct. 819 , 157 L.Ed.2d 708 (2003); State v. Webb, 252 Conn. 128, 147 , 750 A.2

2005It cites no authority in support of its argument that the eighth amendment requirement for heightened reliability in death penalty cases requires the appointment of an amicus curiae in such cases. [1] See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 464 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) ( Katz, J., with whom Norcott, J., joins, dissenting); State v. Ross, 269 Conn. 213, 392-93 , 849 A.2d 648 (2004) ( Norcott, J., dissenting); State v. Breton, 264 Conn. 327, 446-49 , 824 A.2d 778 ( Norcott, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1055 , 124 S.Ct. 819 , 157 L.Ed.2d 708 (2003); State v. Webb, 252 Conn. 128, 147 , 750 A.2

2005It cites no authority in support of its argument that the eighth amendment requirement for heightened reliability in death penalty cases requires the appointment of an amicus curiae in such cases. [1] See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 464 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) ( Katz, J., with whom Norcott, J., joins, dissenting); State v. Ross, 269 Conn. 213, 392-93 , 849 A.2d 648 (2004) ( Norcott, J., dissenting); State v. Breton, 264 Conn. 327, 446-49 , 824 A.2d 778 ( Norcott, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1055 , 124 S.Ct. 819 , 157 L.Ed.2d 708 (2003); State v. Webb, 252 Conn. 128, 147 , 750 A.2

2005It cites no authority in support of its argument that the eighth amendment requirement for heightened reliability in death penalty cases requires the appointment of an amicus curiae in such cases. [1] See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 464 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) ( Katz, J., with whom Norcott, J., joins, dissenting); State v. Ross, 269 Conn. 213, 392-93 , 849 A.2d 648 (2004) ( Norcott, J., dissenting); State v. Breton, 264 Conn. 327, 446-49 , 824 A.2d 778 ( Norcott, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1055 , 124 S.Ct. 819 , 157 L.Ed.2d 708 (2003); State v. Webb, 252 Conn. 128, 147 , 750 A.2

2005It cites no authority in support of its argument that the eighth amendment requirement for heightened reliability in death penalty cases requires the appointment of an amicus curiae in such cases. [1] See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 464 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) ( Katz, J., with whom Norcott, J., joins, dissenting); State v. Ross, 269 Conn. 213, 392-93 , 849 A.2d 648 (2004) ( Norcott, J., dissenting); State v. Breton, 264 Conn. 327, 446-49 , 824 A.2d 778 ( Norcott, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1055 , 124 S.Ct. 819 , 157 L.Ed.2d 708 (2003); State v. Webb, 252 Conn. 128, 147 , 750 A.2

2005It cites no authority in support of its argument that the eighth amendment requirement for heightened reliability in death penalty cases requires the appointment of an amicus curiae in such cases. [1] See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 464 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) ( Katz, J., with whom Norcott, J., joins, dissenting); State v. Ross, 269 Conn. 213, 392-93 , 849 A.2d 648 (2004) ( Norcott, J., dissenting); State v. Breton, 264 Conn. 327, 446-49 , 824 A.2d 778 ( Norcott, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1055 , 124 S.Ct. 819 , 157 L.Ed.2d 708 (2003); State v. Webb, 252 Conn. 128, 147 , 750 A.2

2005It cites no authority in support of its argument that the eighth amendment requirement for heightened reliability in death penalty cases requires the appointment of an amicus curiae in such cases. [1] See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 464 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) ( Katz, J., with whom Norcott, J., joins, dissenting); State v. Ross, 269 Conn. 213, 392-93 , 849 A.2d 648 (2004) ( Norcott, J., dissenting); State v. Breton, 264 Conn. 327, 446-49 , 824 A.2d 778 ( Norcott, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1055 , 124 S.Ct. 819 , 157 L.Ed.2d 708 (2003); State v. Webb, 252 Conn. 128, 147 , 750 A.2

2005It cites no authority in support of its argument that the eighth amendment requirement for heightened reliability in death penalty cases requires the appointment of an amicus curiae in such cases. [1] See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 464 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) ( Katz, J., with whom Norcott, J., joins, dissenting); State v. Ross, 269 Conn. 213, 392-93 , 849 A.2d 648 (2004) ( Norcott, J., dissenting); State v. Breton, 264 Conn. 327, 446-49 , 824 A.2d 778 ( Norcott, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1055 , 124 S.Ct. 819 , 157 L.Ed.2d 708 (2003); State v. Webb, 252 Conn. 128, 147 , 750 A.2

2005It cites no authority in support of its argument that the eighth amendment requirement for heightened reliability in death penalty cases requires the appointment of an amicus curiae in such cases. [1] See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 464 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) ( Katz, J., with whom Norcott, J., joins, dissenting); State v. Ross, 269 Conn. 213, 392-93 , 849 A.2d 648 (2004) ( Norcott, J., dissenting); State v. Breton, 264 Conn. 327, 446-49 , 824 A.2d 778 ( Norcott, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1055 , 124 S.Ct. 819 , 157 L.Ed.2d 708 (2003); State v. Webb, 252 Conn. 128, 147 , 750 A.2

2005It cites no authority in support of its argument that the eighth amendment requirement for heightened reliability in death penalty cases requires the appointment of an amicus curiae in such cases. [1] See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 464 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) ( Katz, J., with whom Norcott, J., joins, dissenting); State v. Ross, 269 Conn. 213, 392-93 , 849 A.2d 648 (2004) ( Norcott, J., dissenting); State v. Breton, 264 Conn. 327, 446-49 , 824 A.2d 778 ( Norcott, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1055 , 124 S.Ct. 819 , 157 L.Ed.2d 708 (2003); State v. Webb, 252 Conn. 128, 147 , 750 A.2

2005It cites no authority in support of its argument that the eighth amendment requirement for heightened reliability in death penalty cases requires the appointment of an amicus curiae in such cases. [1] See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 464 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) ( Katz, J., with whom Norcott, J., joins, dissenting); State v. Ross, 269 Conn. 213, 392-93 , 849 A.2d 648 (2004) ( Norcott, J., dissenting); State v. Breton, 264 Conn. 327, 446-49 , 824 A.2d 778 ( Norcott, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1055 , 124 S.Ct. 819 , 157 L.Ed.2d 708 (2003); State v. Webb, 252 Conn. 128, 147 , 750 A.2

2005Indications from the available evidence suggest that the death penalty has been imposed in a racially discriminatory manner and has been geared toward minorities and the poor."), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 841 , 121 S.Ct. 106 , 148 L.Ed.2d 64 (2000); State v. Webb, 238 Conn. 389, 566-67 , 680 A.2d 147 (1996) ( Norcott, J., dissenting) ("I am persuaded that our statutory scheme for its imposition cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny because that scheme, by its very nature, admits of an unacceptable opportunity for arbitrariness and the influence of racial discrimination to operate in the determ