No. (AC 24021).Appellate Court of Connecticut.
Schaller, DiPentima and West, Js.
Syllabus
The petitioner, who was serving concurrent sentences in connection with his convictions under two informations, sought a writ of habeas corpus to require the respondent commissioner of correction to grant him additional credit for time spent in presentence confinement, which he had served in relation to three matters. The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the petition, from which the petitioner, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court, which reversed the judgment in part and concluded that a prisoner serving multiple concurrent sentences imposed on different dates is entitled to have presentence confinement credit applied to each of those sentences when the credit represents the same period of presentence confinement. Thereafter, the respondent, on the granting of certification, appealed to the Supreme Court, which remanded the case to this court for reconsideration in light of its recent decision in Harris v. Commissioner of Correction (271 Conn. 808). On remand, held that the trial court properly dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, it having properly determined that the petitioner was not entitled to have the presentence confinement credit that he had earned simultaneously under two informations applied to both of the concurrent sentences that he received under those informations; because the concurrent sentences that the petitioner received were imposed on different dates, the presentence confinement credit that had accrued simultaneously under both informations was utilized fully on the date that the respondent applied them to the first sentence imposed, and, therefore, it was proper for the respondent to apply the
Page 833
petitioner’s presentence confinement credit to only one of his concurrent sentences.
Submitted on briefs April 1, 2005.
Officially released June 28, 2005.
Procedural History
Petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New London and tried to the court, Hon. Joseph J. Purtill, judge trial referee; judgment dismissing the petition, from which the petitioner, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court, which reversed the judgment in part; thereafter, the respondent, on the granting of certification, appealed to the Supreme Court, which remanded the case to this court for reconsideration Affirmed.
Adam A. Laben, special public defender, filed a brief for the appellant (petitioner).
Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Madeline A. Melchionne and Henri Alexandre, assistant attorneys general, filed a brief for the appellee (respondent).
Opinion
WEST, J.
This appeal is before us on remand from our Supreme Court Bernstein v. Commissioner of Correction, 272 Conn. 904, 863 A.2d 698 (2004). The petitioner, Daniel Bernstein, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In reversing a portion of the court’s judgment, we held that a prisoner serving multiple concurrent sentences imposed on different dates is entitled to have presentence confinement credit applied to each of those sentences when the credit represents the same period of presentence confinement Bernstein v. Commissioner of Correction, 83 Conn. App. 77, 82-85, 847 A.2d 1090, cert. granted, 272 Conn. 904, 863 A.2d 698 (2004). Our Supreme Court granted the petition for certification to appeal filed by
Page 834
the respondent commissioner of correction and, in the same order, remanded the case to this court for reconsideration in light of Harris v. Commissioner of Correction, 271 Conn. 808, 860 A.2d 715 (2004). After reconsideration, we conclude that the respondent correctly applied the petitioner’s presentence confinement credit to only one of his concurrent sentences. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts are necessary to resolve this case on remand. On December 28, 1999, the petitioner began a period of presentence confinement in lieu of bond on a New London docket. On January 10, 2000, while continuing his presentence confinement on the New London docket, the petitioner began a period of presentence confinement on a Waterbury docket. The petitioner’s confinement from January 20, 2000, to January 18, 2001, satisfied a one year sentence on a Manchester docket. From January 19 to April 17, 2001, the petitioner continued his presentence confinement on the New London and Waterbury dockets. The petitioner was sentenced on the Waterbury docket on April 17, 2001, and on the New London docket on May 16, 2001. The period of presentence confinement on the Waterbury docket was therefore ninety-eight days,[1] and on the New London docket, 111 days.[2] In our previous consideration of this case, we decided that the respondent first should have subtracted ninety-eight days from the Waterbury
Page 835
sentence and 111 days from the New London sentence, and then should have compared the length of the resulting sentences. The sentence with the longer term to run then should have been imposed, according to our previous opinion. Bernstein
v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 83 Conn. App. 84-85.
In subsequently explaining the proper application of presentence confinement credit, our Supreme Court distinguished between concurrent sentences imposed on the same date and those imposed on different dates: “When concurrent sentences are imposed on the same date . . . the available presentence confinement days have not yet been utilized. The respondent thus examines and applies the presentence time served under each docket and then establishes the discharge date by choosing the sentence which has the longest term to run. See General Statutes § 53a-38 (b) (1). Conversely, when concurrent sentences are imposed on different dates, the presentence confinement days accrued simultaneously on more than one docket are utilized fully on the date that they are applied to the first sentence. Hence, they cannot be counted a second time to accelerate the discharge date of any subsequent sentence without violating the language of [General Statutes] § 18-98d (a) (1) (A).”[3] Harris v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 271 Conn. 823.[4]
Page 836
Our previous opinion in the present case would have been correct if the petitioner had been sentenced on the New London and Waterbury dockets on the same date. The petitioner, however, was sentenced on those dockets on different dates. When he was sentenced on the Waterbury docket on April 17, 2001, the respondent correctly credited the ninety-eight days of presentence confinement to reduce the term of the Waterbury sentence. The ninety-eight days therefore were utilized fully.[5] When the petitioner was sentenced on the New London docket on May 16, 2001, only thirteen days of presentence confinement credit remained.[6] The habeas court correctly held that the petitioner was not entitled to have the same presentence confinement credit applied to both the New London and Waterbury sentences.
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.