Opinion
No. CV03-0003989 S
September 23, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
On June 4, 2003, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was amended for the final time on November 1, 2004. Through the operative complaint, the fourth amended petition raises claims in three counts, a joint stipulation of facts filed March 18, 2005, operates as a withdrawal of both counts one and two. Thus, only count three of the fourth amended petition remains for adjudication. That count claims that the respondent has incorrectly applied statutory good time ("SGT") credits to a term of pre-sentence confinement. The respondent's return denies the claim and asserts that the Department of Correction has, in accordance with the applicable statutes, correctly calculated the applicable SGT credits. A reply to the return denies the respondent's defenses.
The matter came before this court on March 18, 2005, and again on June 14, 2005, for a trial on the merits. The court has reviewed all of the pleadings and evidence and, based on the joint stipulation of facts as to count three only, makes the following findings of fact. For the reasons set forth more fully below, the petition shall be denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On May 15, 1987, the petitioner was sentenced in both CR6-260526 and CR6-260527 to concurrent terms of twelve years, execution suspended after six years, and a term of probation.
2. Prior to discharging the six-year terms of sentences in CR6-260526 and CR6-260527, the petitioner had served and been credited with time equaling five years, thus entitling him to earn statutory good time at the enhanced rate of 12 days per month.
3. After completing the incarceration portion of the sentences in CR6-260526 and CR6-260527, the petitioner was released from custody.
4. Petitioner became eligible for an enhanced rate of good time at 12 days per month on May 17, 1988.
5. On July 15, 1991, the petitioner was arrested for a new offense, which was assigned docket number CR135627B. One consequence of this new offense was that it triggered violation of probation charges in dockets CR6-260526 and CR6-260527.
6. The petitioner was held in pre-sentence detention in lieu of bond from July 15, 1991 to October 24, 1991 under a mittimus in CR6-260526 and under a mittmus in CR6-260527.
7. The mittimus in CR6-260526 and the mittimus in CR6-260527 charged the petitioner with violation of probation in relation to sentences imposed May 15, 1987 in CR6-260526 and CR6-260527.
8. In accordance with C.G.S § 18-98d(a), the respondent has credited the petitioner with 101 days of pre-sentence confinement credit reflecting the period of confinement from July 15, 1991 to October 24, 1991. The respondent has also, in accordance with C.G.S. § 18-98d(b), credited the petitioner with 33 days of pre-sentence confinement credit good time.
9. The ten-day per month calculation of pre-sentence good time is set forth in § 18-98d.
10. During the period 7/15/91 to 10/24/91, the respondent applied good time at the rate of 10 days per 30 days.
11. In Count Three of the Fourth Amended Petition, the sole remaining claim for adjudication, the petitioner seeks an enhanced rate of good time at 12 days per 30 days from 7/15/91 to 10/24/91, a 102-day period in which the petitioner was held in lieu of bond.
12. During the period 7/15/91 to 10/24/91, the petitioner was indigent and represented by the public defender in New Haven.
13. Petitioner has served one continuous term of incarceration for the purpose of calculating good time from April 13, 1983 to the present date.
DISCUSSION OF LAW
C.G.S. § 18-98d(b) states in relevant part that if a ". . . person [entitled to pre-sentence confinement credit] obeys the rules of the facility such person may receive a good conduct reduction of any portion of . . . [a] sentence not suspended at the rate of ten days . . . for each thirty days of pre-sentence confinement; provided any day spent in pre-sentence confinement by a person who has more than one information pending against such person may not be counted more than once in computing a good conduct reduction under this subsection."
"[G]ood time is a commutation of a sentence, affecting an inmate's parole and discharge dates, thereby serving an important rehabilitative function by allowing an inmate the opportunity to earn an earlier release for himself . . . The purpose of the . . . good time award is to aid the rehabilitative process and to mitigate the severity of punishment by rewarding a prisoner for his good conduct." Rivera v. Commissioner of Correction, 254 Conn. 214, 217 n. 2 (2000), quoting Alexander v. Robinson, 185 Conn. 540, 543-44 (1981).
In Velez v. Commissioner of Correction, 250 Conn. 536, 540 (1999), the Supreme Court ". . . under [took] a general overview of the statutory scheme governing the release of prisoners . . . [T]he good time statutes set forth formulae by which incarcerated persons could earn a commutation of their court-imposed sentences . . . In other words, the good time statutes provided a means by which an inmate could earn a reduction of his or her court-imposed sentence, thereby advancing the date on which he or she no longer would be subject to the authority of the department of correction . . . or, if he or she had been granted parole, the authority of the board of parole . . ." (Internal citations omitted.)
Recently, the Appellate Court noted ". . . that it is well-established in our jurisprudence that pre-sentence confinement credits, authorized by § 18-98d and its predecessor, General Statutes (Rev. to 1979) § 18-98, are matters of legislative grace. See Harris v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 271 Conn. 808,] 833, 838 [(2004)], Hammond v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 259 Conn. 855], 879; Jobnson v. Manson, 196 Conn. 309, 321 n. 12, 493 A.2d 846 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1063, 106 S.Ct. 813, 88 L.Ed.2d 787 (1986); see also Franklin v. Berger, 211 Conn. 591, 611-12, 560 A.2d 444 (1989) (Healey, J., concurring). If such time, which is time in which the prisoner is actually confined and his liberty deprived, are matters of legislative grace, we conclude that statutory good time credits, which are calculated not on time served but by the length of the sentence, similarly must be matters of legislative grace." Whitaker v. Commissioner of Corrections, 90 Conn.App. 460, 491 n. 38 (2005).
As enacted by the legislature, § 18-98d(b) quite clearly only allows the earning of ten days of good time credit per every thirty days of pre-sentence confinement. This formula is explicit and not subject to any other interpretation. The legislative grace regarding pre-sentence confinement good time credits extends as far as awarding ten days per month and has not, as has C.G.S. § 18-7a(c), provided for an enhanced rate. Consequently, there is no authority to award the petitioner twelve days of enhanced pre-sentence confinement good time credits per month. The respondent has, therefore, correctly determined the petitioner's pre-sentence confinement good time credits in accordance with § 18-98d(b).
Judgment is entered denying the petition.
S.T. FUGER, JR., JUDGE