· 12/10/2024

State v. Hurdle

Citations

  • 350 Conn. 770

Syllabus

The defendant appealed, on the granting of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which had affirmed his conviction, following a guilty plea, of robbery in the first degree and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the Appellate Court had incorrectly upheld the trial court's conclusion that it lacked authority under the statute (§ 18-98d) governing presentence confinement credit to direct the commissioner of correction to apply such credit to the defendant's sentence. Held: This court concluded that § 18-98d does not confer exclusive authority on the commissioner to calculate and apply presentence confinement credit and that a trial court has discretionary authority to include on a judgment mittimus an order directing the commissioner to apply presentence confine- ment credit, in accordance with § 18-98d (a) (1), to a sentence that the court has imposed. This court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court insofar as that court upheld the trial court's conclusion that it did not have discretion to direct the commissioner to apply certain presentence confinement credit to the defendant's sentence and ordered the Appellate Court to remand the case to the trial court so that it could exercise its discretion, in the first instance, with respect to the presentence confinement credit issue. The Appellate Court correctly concluded that the defendant's plea agreement did not include an agreement that he would receive presentence confinement credit for the time that he was incarcerated and serving sentences in connec- tion with two criminal cases unrelated to the present case, as the record contained no evidence that would support such a finding. There was no merit to the defendant's claim that the plea agreement was void on the ground that there was no meeting of the minds on the issue of presentence confinement credit, because, although the record supported the conclusion that the defendant subjective

Judges: McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy

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.