Facts
- Eric L. pleaded guilty to violating a protective order, resulting in a five-year sentence suspended after five years of probation [lines="130-136"].
- He was arrested for threatening behavior while hospitalized for mental health issues and later charged with violating probation [lines="141-154"].
- Due to COVID-19 delays, he was not served the probation violation warrant until October 22, 2020, though the warrant was signed on May 14, 2020 [lines="156-161"].
- The trial court revoked his probation and denied his request for presentence confinement credit from May 6 to December 28, 2020 [lines="164-175"].
- The Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s denial of credit, citing its prior case, State v. Hurdle, which stated the court lacked authority to award such credit [lines="236-239"].
Issues
- Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the trial court lacked authority to award presentence confinement credit under General Statutes § 18-98d? [lines="101-102"].
- Is the defendant entitled to presentence confinement credit starting from the signing date of the warrant rather than the service date? [lines="250-253"].
Holdings
- The trial court does have authority to direct the commissioner of correction to apply presentence confinement credit to a sentence on a judgment mittimus [lines="40-44"].
- The trial court's incorrect determination of its authority necessitates a remand for it to exercise discretion regarding the application of credit starting from May 14, 2020 [lines="311-317"].
OPINION
*1 Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Britney Odell Bates, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Brooker, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6431 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Britney Odell Bates, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. First, we grant Bates’ motion to amend his informal brief and have considered it in our review. The district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bates has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2