James v. Commissioner of Correction
170 A.3d 662
| Conn. | 2017Background
- James was arrested on a single docket for robbery, assault and felony murder and held in lieu of bond beginning March 3, 1995.
- After a jury convicted him of robbery, the court declared a mistrial on the remaining counts; on December 13, 1996 James was sentenced to 20 years for robbery and received 651 days of presentence confinement credit under § 18-98d.
- James was retried on the felony murder charge and on August 5, 1999 was convicted and, on August 13, 1999, sentenced to 50 years to run concurrently with the robbery sentence.
- The Commissioner credited only one day on the felony murder sentence and refused to transfer the earlier 651-day credit or to treat the 973 days James spent imprisoned between the robbery and murder sentences as presentence confinement credit.
- James filed a habeas petition challenging the credit calculation; the habeas court denied relief and certification to appeal was granted to reach the statutory interpretation and constitutional questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether presentence confinement credit already applied to an earlier sentence must transfer to a later-imposed concurrent sentence under same docket when sentences merge | James: § 18-98d and related statutes/legislative intent require transfer of the 651 days to the later felony murder sentence because the sentences merge under § 53a-38 and all arose from one prosecution | Commissioner: § 18-98d(a)(1)(A) forbids counting days more than once; Harris controls — credit used on earlier sentence cannot be reapplied to a later concurrent sentence imposed on a different date | Court: Statute ambiguous; considering legislative history and merger under § 53a-38, the 651 days must be transferred to the later-imposed concurrent felony murder sentence |
| Whether time spent incarcerated after the robbery sentence (including time litigating a double jeopardy claim) qualifies as presentence confinement credit for the later sentence | James: Time serving the robbery sentence while pursuing a pretrial double jeopardy claim should be converted to presentence confinement credit when reprosecution may yield a concurrent sentence | Commissioner: § 18-98d(a)(1)(B) limits credit to confinement solely due to mittimus or inability/denial of bail; James was confined serving a sentence, so no credit | Court: Applying § 18-98d to deny credit for the period James pursued a double jeopardy claim would impermissibly burden a constitutional right; adopt a judicial gloss entitling such defendants to corresponding credit for that period |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Commissioner of Correction, 271 Conn. 808, 860 A.2d 715 (Conn. 2004) (held credit already applied to an earlier sentence cannot be used to reduce a later-imposed concurrent sentence imposed on a different date)
- Payton v. Albert, 209 Conn. 23, 547 A.2d 1 (Conn. 1988) (concurrent sentences imposed same day allow allocation of credit to produce longest effective term)
- Delevieieleuse v. Manson, 184 Conn. 434, 439 A.2d 1055 (Conn. 1981) (interpretation of predecessor statutes awarding presentence credit when multiple sentences arise under one docket)
- Boyd v. Lantz, 487 F. Supp. 2d 3 (D. Conn. 2007) (federal court: denying credit for time spent pursuing double jeopardy claim unconstitutionally burdens that right in narrow context)
- Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202, 789 A.2d 431 (Conn. 2002) (statutory construction principle: prefer constitutional constructions when reasonably possible)