Bagalloo v. Commissioner of Correction, 195 Conn.App. 528

Bagalloo was serving a sentence for a narcotics conviction (sentenced Nov. 10, 2008) when arrested on March 31, 2009 for conspiracy to commit murder; he later pleaded guilty and received a 16‑year sentence on Dec. 10, 2013.
Because Bagalloo remained a sentenced prisoner on the earlier narcotics term until Sept. 9, 2011, § 18‑98d(a)(1)(B) precluded presentence confinement credit for the period from March 31, 2009 to Sept. 9, 2011 (so-called "dead time").
Bagalloo filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea arguing his plea was not knowing and voluntary because trial counsel, Walkley, failed to advise him about sentence length and jail‑credit issues; the trial court denied that motion and Bagalloo did not appeal.
Bagalloo then filed a habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance: Walkley failed to (1) adequately inform him about ineligibility for pretrial credit and (2) request that the sentencing court award such credit; he also claimed his plea was involuntary.
The habeas court conducted a trial, found Walkley credible and that he did inform Bagalloo about the "dead time," and concluded Walkley did not render ineffective assistance; the court denied certification to appeal.
The Appellate Court dismissed Bagalloo’s appeal, holding the habeas court did not abuse its discretion and that counsel was not deficient for failing to request pretrial credit the petitioner was ineligible to receive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel failed to inform Bagalloo that time from Mar. 31, 2009 to Sept. 9, 2011 would not be credited (plea advice)	Walkley did not adequately advise Bagalloo of ineligibility for 893 days of presentence credit; Bagalloo would have rejected the plea and gone to trial	Walkley testified he specifically warned Bagalloo that resolution of the earlier sentence produced "dead time" and no jail credit would apply; habeas court found Walkley credible	Habeas court’s credibility finding upheld; counsel not ineffective; certification denial not an abuse of discretion
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request court‑ordered presentence confinement credit at sentencing	Requesting credit was common practice; DOC often honors court‑awarded credit; requesting would have been harmless and prudent	Bagalloo was ineligible under § 18‑98d(a)(1)(B); Washington bars judicial fiat granting credit contrary to statute; asking for unlawful credit is not required and cannot be deficient performance	Counsel not deficient for failing to request unauthorized credit; habeas court correctly denied relief

Washington v. Commissioner of Correction, 287 Conn. 792 (Conn. 2008) (holds presentence confinement credit is available only to defendants who qualify under § 18‑98d and courts cannot override statutory disqualification)
Budziszewski v. Commissioner of Correction, 322 Conn. 504 (Conn. 2016) (reinforces presumption that counsel acted competently and that petitioner bears burden to show counsel failed to give required advice)
Lee v. Commissioner of Correction, 173 Conn. App. 379 (Conn. App. 2017) (applies § 18‑98d to disallow jail credit while an earlier sentence runs)
Weathers v. Commissioner of Correction, 133 Conn. App. 440 (Conn. App. 2012) (attorney not required to ask for sentencing benefits to which defendant has no statutory entitlement)
Corbett v. Commissioner of Correction, 133 Conn. App. 310 (Conn. App. 2012) (appellate courts defer to habeas court credibility findings)