Ostroski v. Commissioner of Correction
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. ****************************************************** RICHARD OSTROSKI v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (SC 18600) Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Palmer, Zarella, McLachlan, Eveleigh and Harper, Js. Submitted on briefs officially released July 5, 2011 Damon A. R. Kirschbaum, filed a brief for the appellant (petitioner). Madeline A. Melchionne and Terrence M. O Neill, assistant attorneys general, George Jepsen, attorney general, and Richard Blumenthal, former attorney general, filed a brief for the appellee (respondent). Opinion PER CURIAM. The sole issue in this appeal1 is whether General Statutes § 53a-35b, which defines a sentence of life imprisonment as a term of sixty years, applies to the sentence of the petitioner, Richard Ostroski, who committed the offense prior to July 1, 1981, the effective date of § 53a-35b, but was sentenced after that date. The petitioner contends that the habeas court improperly rejected his challenge to his indeterminate sentence on the basis of that court s conclusion that the statute only applies prospectively. This court recently rejected an identical argument advanced by the petitioner in Castonguay v. Commissioner of Correction, 300 Conn. 649, 16 A.3d 676 (2011), a case that is indistinguishable from the present case as to the material facts. Because Castonguay controls, which the petitioner in the present case concedes, the appeal is dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. 1 The petitioner appealed from the judgment of the habeas court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1.
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.
