State v. Riddick, 194 Conn.App. 243

Defendant Jerome Riddick pleaded guilty to attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, and sale of narcotics.
He filed a motion to correct a judgment mittimus claiming entitlement to additional presentence confinement credit.
The trial court (Hon. Ronald D. Fasano, judge trial referee) denied the motion, concluding Riddick was not entitled to the credit.
Riddick appealed the denial of his motion to this court.
The appellate court held that challenges to the Commissioner of Correction’s application of presentence confinement credit must be brought by petition for a writ of habeas corpus, not by a motion to the sentencing court.
Because the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction over the motion, the appellate court reversed the denial and remanded with direction to dismiss the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper procedural vehicle to challenge application of presentence confinement credit	State: trial court properly addressed and denied the motion	Riddick: entitled to credit and sought correction via motion to correct a judgment mittimus	Habeas corpus petition is the proper remedy; trial court lacked jurisdiction and the motion should be dismissed

State v. Montanez, 149 Conn. App. 32 (holds motion to revise judgment mittimus raising misapplication of presentence credit must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
State v. Carmona, 104 Conn. App. 828 (holds habeas proceeding, not motion to correct illegal sentence, is proper method to assert presentence confinement credit claim)