217 Conn.App. 453
Conn. App. Ct.2023Background
- Defendant Marcus Hurdle faced multiple unrelated criminal files; while serving sentences from probation violations and a pistol possession plea, he later pleaded guilty under Alford to robbery in the first degree and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree to resolve the West Haven robbery file.
- As part of the plea agreement the state nolle prossed remaining charges; agreed sentence was 12 years, execution suspended after 7.5 years, with 5 years probation to run concurrently with existing sentences.
- At the plea hearing the defendant twice acknowledged understanding the agreed sentence; neither the plea nor the prosecutor’s statements included any promise of presentence confinement (jail) credit.
- At sentencing the defendant— for the first time—asked for presentence confinement credit for specific periods; the prosecutor said jail credit was not part of the bargain and the court declined to award credit, deferring calculation/application to the Commissioner of Correction.
- The court denied the defendant’s motion to withdraw his pleas and to order jail credit; defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Hurdle's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to order presentence confinement credit at sentencing | Sentencing courts have inherent authority and broad discretion to structure sentences, which includes accounting for jail credit | Statute (§ 18-98d) assigns responsibility to the Commissioner of Correction to calculate/apply jail credit; sentencing courts should defer | Court held Commissioner, not sentencing court, has initial and sole responsibility to calculate/apply presentence confinement credit; credit is applied to an imposed sentence, not part of sentence construction |
| Whether there was a meeting of the minds re: plea terms (motion to withdraw pleas) | Defendant contends plea bargain included expectation of jail credit and therefore no true mutual assent | Record shows plea agreement did not include jail credit; defense counsel and prosecutor confirmed credit was not bargained for; defendant acknowledged agreed sentence during canvass | Court found no evidence of a bargained promise about jail credit; plea acceptance and denial of withdrawal were proper |
| Sufficiency of plea canvass re: waiver of jury trial | Defendant argues canvass failed to expressly state that plea waived the right to a jury trial, rendering plea constitutionally deficient | State notes defendant was represented, had earlier elected a jury trial, and acknowledged waiver of trial; Badgett precedent permits inference that waiver included jury right | Under controlling precedent (Badgett), canvass was constitutionally sufficient; claim fails under Golding/plain error review |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Commissioner of Correction, 287 Conn. 792 (Conn. 2008) (§ 18-98d requires presentence credit be applied against imposed sentence; credit is statutory, not part of sentence)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (prosecutor promises that induce a plea must be fulfilled)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (entry and acceptance of plea under Alford doctrine)
- State v. Badgett, 200 Conn. 412 (Conn. 1986) (a plea canvass need not expressly state "jury" if record permits inference that waiver included jury right)
- James v. Commissioner of Correction, 327 Conn. 24 (Conn. 2017) (cases addressing commissioner’s calculation/application of jail credit)
- State v. Deshawn D., 136 Conn. App. 373 (Conn. App. 2012) (presentence confinement credit is a creature of statute)