DocketNumber: No. CV 99-0549962S
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 13378
Judges: JONGBLOED, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 9/20/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
(1) Docket No. 10-201205; Defendant sentenced on count 1 to 5 years, suspended after 3 years, consecutive to all files;
(2) Docket No. 10-201207; Defendant sentenced on count 1 to 5 years, suspended after 3 years, consecutive to all files;
(3) Docket No. 10-201210; Defendant sentenced on count 1 to 5 years, suspended after 3 years, consecutive to all files;
(4) Docket No. 10-200560; Defendant sentenced on count 1 to 10 years, suspended after 3 years, and on count 2 to 1 year, sentences to run consecutive to each other and other files;
(5) Docket No. CR93-211183; Defendant sentenced to 90 days.
Prior to sentencing, Petitioner Carpenter had been held simultaneously in presentence confinement under four relevant docket numbers.1 Pursuant to C.G.S §
In arriving at his release date, Petitioner Carpenter was awarded jail credit in Docket Nos. 10-210205, 10-201207, and 10-201210 of 485 days CT Page 13380 based on the number of days he was held in pretrial confinement. In Docket No. 10-200560, he was awarded a total of 296 days jail credit. The respondent applied the jail credit award only once, representing day-for-day credit for time served in pretrial confinement once, for the purpose of reducing all sentences subsequently imposed. Petitioner also received good time credit which is not at issue in this Petition.
Petitioner testified that he believed his sentence and release date should be calculated differently. He asserts that the DOC first should have given him credit for the time served in pretrial confinement on each of the four mittimi at issue here, then should have determined a discharge date for each, and then should have aggregated all the dockets to determine the release date which he refers to in his post-trial brief as the longest running sentence. (Petitioner's Brief In Support of Habeas Hearing at 2). Petitioner argues that using this method of calculation, his release date should have been January, 2000.
Any person who is confined to a community correctional center or a correctional institution for an offense committed on or after July 1, 1981, under a mittimus or because such person is unable to obtain bail or is denied bail shall, if subsequently imprisoned, earn a reduction of his sentence equal to the number of days which he spent in such facility from the time he was placed in presentence confinement to the time he began serving the term of imprisonment imposed; provided (1) each day of presentence confinement shall be counted only once for the purpose of reducing all sentences imposed after such presentence confinement. . . . C.G.S. §
18-98d (a) (emphasis added).
Thus, each day of presentence confinement shall be counted only once for the purpose of reducing all sentences. The plain meaning of §
McCarthy v. Commissioner,
Further, Delevieleuse v. Manson,
For the reasons set forth above, the petitioner's release date was properly calculated by the Department of Correction and the petition is hereby dismissed.
It is So Ordered this 20th day of September, 2001.
Jongbloed, J.