Smith v. Commissioner of Correction, 179 Conn. App. 160

Petitioner Tremaine Smith was arrested Feb 3, 2010 and held on multiple charges while awaiting sentencing on a violation of probation; he accrued presentence confinement time beginning then.
On Sept 13, 2010 the court sentenced Smith on the violation of probation and applied jail credit dating to that date; the court left a global plea offer open for a limited time that would be made retroactive to Sept 13, 2010.
After a jury conviction (later reversed) on an attempted robbery charge and an 11-year sentence, Smith accepted an Alford plea on May 5, 2011 to first‑degree kidnapping under a deal for 14 years, execution suspended after 10, to run concurrently with the 11‑year sentence; the mittimus credited time back to Sept 13, 2010.
Smith later filed an amended habeas petition claiming trial counsel Mitchell‑Hoffler was ineffective for assuring him he would receive all presentence credit (including ~7 months from Feb 3, 2010), and that but for that assurance he would have rejected the plea and gone to trial.
At the habeas trial the court credited counsel’s testimony that he had multiple concerns and that full credit was only one of them, and found Smith’s testimony not credible; the habeas court denied relief and denied certification to appeal, and this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of certification to appeal was an abuse of discretion because trial counsel’s alleged erroneous assurance about jail credit constituted ineffective assistance causing prejudice (i.e., Smith would have gone to trial but for the advice)	Mitchell‑Hoffler told Smith he would receive all jail credit back to Feb 3, 2010 and Smith relied on that promise in accepting the kidnapping plea; this advice was deficient and prejudicial under Hill/Strickland	Habeas court credited counsel’s testimony that full credit was only one of many concerns, that counsel had discussed credit and the judge indicated only partial credit would be given, and that Smith’s own testimony was not credible; substantial exposure at trial made plea rational regardless of the credit issue	Denial of certification was not an abuse of discretion; habeas court reasonably found no prejudice and dismissed appeal

Washington v. Commissioner of Correction, 287 Conn. 792 (explains limits on presentence confinement credit)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (plea‑stage prejudice standard: must show reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, petitioner would have insisted on going to trial)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance framework: deficient performance and prejudice)
Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (standards for granting certification to appeal from habeas denial)
Taylor v. Commissioner of Correction, 324 Conn. 631 (deference to habeas court credibility findings)