(a) If the case of a child, as defined in section
46b-120, is transferred to the regular criminal docket of the Superior Court pursuant to section
46b-127 and the child is convicted of a class A or B felony pursuant to such transfer, at the time of sentencing, the court shall:
(1) Consider, in addition to any other information relevant to sentencing, the defendant's age at the time of the offense, the hallmark features of adolescence, and any scientific and psychological evidence showing the differences between a child's brain development and an adult's brain development; and
(2) Consider, if the court proposes to sentence the child to a lengthy sentence under which it is likely that the child will die while incarcerated, how the scientific and psychological evidence described in subdivision (1) of this subsection counsels against such a sentence.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 54-91a, no presentence investigation or report may be waived with respect to a child convicted of a class A or B felony. Any presentence report prepared with respect to a child convicted of a class A or B felony shall address the factors set forth in subparagraphs (A) to (D), inclusive, of subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of this section.
(c) Whenever a child is sentenced pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the court shall indicate the maximum period of incarceration that may apply to the child and whether the child may be eligible to apply for release on parole pursuant to subdivision (1) of subsection (f) of section 54-125a.
(d) The Court Support Services Division of the Judicial Branch shall compile reference materials relating to adolescent psychological and brain development to assist courts in sentencing children pursuant to this section.
(P.A. 15-84, S. 2.)
Legislature did not intend for section to apply retroactively, and nothing in the text or legislative history of section suggests that legislature intended that all juveniles convicted of a class A or B felony who were sentenced without consideration of the age related mitigating factors identified in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, would be sentenced. 323 C. 801. Section did not apply to defendant, who was seventeen years old when he committed his crimes, because section does not apply retroactively to defendants who, although under the age of eighteen when they committed their crimes, were initially charged and tried as adults and because he was not a child under the applicable law when his crimes were committed, was charged as an adult and prosecuted under the regular criminal docket, his case was not transferred from the juvenile docket to the regular criminal docket, and he was not convicted pursuant to such transfer. 341 C. 97.
Express language of section makes no reference to a presumption or a specific finding that court was required to make in order to overcome that purported presumption. 190 CA 1. Section does not create presumption against the imposition of life imprisonment on a juvenile defendant and the court was not required to make finding that defendant was incorrigible, irreparably corrupt, or irretrievably depraved. 192 CA 738; judgment affirmed, see 341 C. 97.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2016–2022 · leading case:
State v. Williams-Bey, 144 A.3d 467 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016).
State v. Williams-Bey, 144 A.3d 467 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 9× “" General Statutes § 54-91g (a)(1). Furthermore, the statute ensures that the sentencing court will have this information before it prior to sentencing, as the statute prohibits the waiver of any presentence investigation or report.”
State v. Riley, 209 A.3d 646 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019).
· cites it 24× “15-84, codified as amended at General Statutes § 54-91g, requires a sentencing judge to consider a juvenile's age and any youth related mitigating factors before imposing a sentence following a juvenile's conviction of any class A or class B felony.”
State v. Delgado, 151 A.3d 345 (Conn. 2016).
· cites it 4× “2016) § 54-91g, requires a sentencing judge to consider a juvenile's age and any youth related mitigating factors before imposing a sentence following a juvenile's conviction of any class A or class B felony.”
State v. Rivera, 172 A.3d 260 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 5× “16 We note that with respect to this claim, the defendant argues that General Statutes § 54-91g (b) prohibits the waiver of a presentence investigation or report as to a juvenile convicted of a class A or B felony, which applied to his conviction.”
State v. Williams-Bey, 333 Conn. 468 (Conn. 2019).
· cites it 2× “15-84, codified as amended at General Statutes § 54-91g, provides in relevant part: ‘‘(a) If the case of a child .”
State v. Myers, 343 Conn. 447 (Conn. 2022).
· cites it 27× “2d 407 (2012), and General Statutes § 54-91g,2 (2) the structure of his two sentences deprived him of a meaningful opportunity for parole because it resulted in a later parole eligibility date than he otherwise would have been enti- tled to under General Statutes § 54-125a (f)…”
State v. Coltherst (Conn. 2021).
· cites it 47× “In his original brief to this court, the defendant claimed that the Appel- late Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court followed the statutory requirements of General Statutes § 54-91g in resentencing him to eighty years of incarcer- ation.”
State v. Coltherst, 341 Conn. 97 (Conn. 2021).
· cites it 47× “In his original brief to this court, the defendant claimed that the Appel- late Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court followed the statutory requirements of General Statutes § 54-91g in resentencing him to eighty years of incarcer- ation.”
State v. Coltherst (Conn. App. Ct. 2019).
· cites it 23× “1 General Statutes § 54-91g provides: ‘‘(a) If the case of a child, as defined in section 46b-120, is transferred to the regular criminal docket of the Supe- rior Court pursuant to section 46b-127 and the child is convicted of a class A or B felony pursuant to such transfer, at…”
Woods v. Comm'r of Corr. (Conn. App. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 2× “15 The habeas court stated that General Statutes § 54-91g (a) (1), which requires a sentencing court to take into account ‘‘the defendant’s age at the time of the offense, the hallmark features of adolescence, and any scientific and psychological evidence showing the differences…”
Woods v. Comm'r of Corr. (Conn. App. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 2× “15 The habeas court stated that General Statutes § 54-91g (a) (1), which requires a sentencing court to take into account ‘‘the defendant’s age at the time of the offense, the hallmark features of adolescence, and any scientific and psychological evidence showing the differences…”
State v. McCleese (Conn. 2019).
“2016) § 54-91g, provides in relevant part: ‘‘(a) If the case of a child .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.