Torres v. Commissioner of Correction
167 A.3d 1020
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Carlos Torres was arrested July 30, 2008, remained in custody as a pretrial detainee for inability to post bail, pleaded guilty and was sentenced September 22, 2009.
- He received 419 days of presentence confinement credit under § 18-98d for time spent before sentencing.
- Public Act 11-51 (codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-98e), effective July 1, 2011, authorized discretionary "risk reduction earned credits" (up to 5 days/month) for sentenced inmates, and permitted retroactive awards for qualifying conduct on/after April 1, 2006.
- The Department of Correction retroactively awarded Torres 119 days of risk reduction credit for conduct from Oct. 5, 2009 to Oct. 1, 2011, but awarded no credit for his pretrial detention period (Jul. 30, 2008–Sep. 21, 2009).
- Torres filed a habeas petition claiming (1) § 18-98e should allow pretrial detainees to earn (or have retroactive credit for) risk reduction credits and (2) exclusion of indigent pretrial detainees violates equal protection. The habeas court denied relief and denied certification to appeal; the appellate court granted review of the certification denial but affirmed on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Torres) | Defendant's Argument (Commissioner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 18-98e permits pretrial detainees to earn risk reduction credits (including retroactive application) | § 18-98e is ambiguous and should be read to allow retroactive credit for time spent in presentence confinement, because the statute’s purpose is to encourage programming and rehabilitation | Statute is clear: eligibility is limited to sentenced inmates; retroactive awards apply only to conduct while sentenced and committed | Held for Commissioner: statute is plain and unambiguous—only sentenced inmates may earn risk reduction credits; Torres ineligible for pre‑sentence period |
| Whether exclusion of indigent pretrial detainees from § 18-98e violates equal protection (5th/14th Amendments) | Excluding indigent pretrial detainees creates unequal treatment that prolongs incarceration for the indigent; intermediate scrutiny should apply | Pretrial detainees and sentenced inmates are not similarly situated; earned credit is statutory (no fundamental right) and survives rational‑basis review | Held for Commissioner: claim fails under Perez precedent—no equal protection violation; habeas court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because claim cannot afford habeas relief |
| Whether the habeas court abused its discretion by denying certification to appeal | Certification should have been granted because both issues were issues of first impression and debatable among jurists | (Defendant did not contest that issues were novel but defended the merits) | Held for Torres on certification: denial was an abuse of discretion; appellate review of merits appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Commissioner of Correction, 154 Conn. App. 78 (discusses standards for habeas certification)
- Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Correction, 131 Conn. App. 336 (issues of first impression may deserve encouragement to proceed)
- Graham v. Commissioner of Correction, 39 Conn. App. 473 (same)
- Cruz v. Montanez, 294 Conn. 357 (statutory construction principles; use text first)
- Johnson v. Manson, 196 Conn. 309 (clear statutory language leaves no room for judicial construction)
- Dept. of Public Safety v. State Board of Labor Relations, 296 Conn. 594 (court will not supply omitted statutory language)
- Perez v. Commissioner of Correction, 326 Conn. 357 (Supreme Court: exclusion of indigent presentence detainees from § 18-98e does not violate equal protection)
- McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263 (rational‑basis justifications framework cited)
- Velez v. Commissioner of Correction, 250 Conn. 536 (good‑time statutes and applicability context)