Skip to main content
· 2/4/2020

Bagalloo v. Commissioner of Correction

Citations

  • 195 Conn. App. 528

Syllabus

The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming, inter alia, that his trial counsel, W, rendered ineffective assistance by failing to inform him adequately about his ineligibility for presentence confinement credit and by failing to request that the trial judge award him that confinement credit. On March 31, 2009, the petitioner, while serving a sentence for a narcotics offense and a violation of probation, was arrested for conspir- acy to commit murder. The petitioner pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge and, on December 10, 2013, received a sixteen year sentence. Although the petitioner was held in custody on the homicide case, in lieu of bond, since March 31, 2009, pursuant to statute (§ 18-98d [a] [1] [B]), he did not receive credit for the time he spent in confinement from that date to September 9, 2011, the date his sentence for the narcotics offense and violation of probation terminated. The petitioner only received presentence confinement credit toward the sixteen year sen- tence from September 10, 2011, to December 10, 2013. The habeas court conducted a trial, during which the petitioner and W testified. The court rendered judgment denying the habeas petition, concluding, inter alia, that W had not rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and that he informed the petitioner adequately about the length of his sentence. Thereafter, the habeas court denied the petition for certification to appeal, and the petitioner appealed to this court. Held: 1. The petitioner's claim that W rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to properly inform the petitioner that he would not receive credit for the time he spent in presentence confinement from March 31, 2009, to September 9, 2011, before the petitioner pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder, was unavailing; the habeas court found that W had specifically informed the petitioner that the petitioner's resolution of the narcotics and violation of probation case created a dead time scenario wh

Judges: DiPentima; Keller; Bright

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.