Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction (concurring)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** JOHNSON v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION CONCURRENCE PALMER, J., with whom KATZ, J., joins, concurring. I agree with the result that the majority reaches. I disagree, however, with the majority s decision not to resolve the petitioner s unpreserved ex post facto claim on the ground that the petitioner did not expressly invoke State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239 40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989). See part I of the majority opinion. Although the petitioner should have acknowledged that his ex post facto claim was unpreserved and that he was seeking review under Golding, the state never objected on the ground that the petitioner had failed to invoke Golding; indeed, the state addressed the petitioner s ex post facto claim on its merits. There is no dispute, moreover, that the petitioner s claim fully satisfies the requirements for Golding review. Furthermore, the arguments and analysis that the petitioner raised in support of his ex post facto claim are precisely the same arguments and analysis that he would have raised if he had invoked Golding. Finally, as the majority acknowledges; see footnote 4 of the majority opinion; the merits of the petitioner s claim are foreclosed by our recent opinion in Washington v. Commissioner of Correction, 287 Conn. 792, A.2d (2008). Under the circumstances, therefore, I see no reason why we should not consider the merits of the petitioner s ex post facto claim. I would do so and reject them for the reasons set forth in Washington. I therefore concur in the result.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
