The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.

Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

by Townsend, Karen

 

SC20827 - State v. Hurdle (Robbery in the first degree; conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that (1) under subsection (c) of § 18-98d, the trial court lacked authority to direct the commissioner to apply presentence confinement credit, and (2) there was no basis for allowing the defendant to withdraw his guilty pleas because the plea agreement did not include some of the presentence confinement credit that the defendant had sought from the trial court. We conclude that the trial court has the discretionary authority under § 18-98d to include on the mittimus an order directing the commissioner to award presentence confinement credit in accordance with subsection (a) (1) of that statute for specific dates when the defendant was confined because he was unable to obtain bail or because bail was denied. We further conclude that the Appellate Court correctly determined that the plea agreement did not include an agreement that the defendant would receive presentence confinement credit for the time he spent serving sentences in connection with different files, and, for that reason, the defendant was not entitled to withdraw his plea. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)

SC20834 - State v. Eric L. (Violation of probation; presentence confinement credit; companion case; “The defendant claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court lacked authority under General Statutes § 18-98d2 to direct the commissioner of correction (commissioner) to apply specific presentence confinement credit to his sentence. We agree and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)

SC20848 - State v. Nixon (Motion to correct an illegal sentence for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court incorrectly concluded that it lacked authority under General Statutes § 18-98d to direct the commissioner of correction (commissioner) to apply a specific number of presentence confinement credits to his sentence. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.”)