Houston v. Warden, Connecticut Correctional Institution, Somers

• Decision Date: 29 July 1975
• Citation: 169 Conn. 247,363 A.2d 121
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Oswald HOUSTON v. WARDEN, CONNECTICUT CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, SOMERS.

Page 121

363 A.2d 121

169 Conn. 247

Oswald HOUSTON v. WARDEN, CONNECTICUT CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, SOMERS.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

July 29, 1975.

Stephen J. O'Neill, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, was Carl R. Ajello, Atty. Gen., for appellant (defendant).

Leonard I, Shankman, Hartford, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before HOUSE, C.J., and LOISELLE, MacDONALD, LONGO and BARBER, JJ.

HOUSE, Chief Justice.

This action was commenced by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and was tried to the Superior Court in Hartford County upon the facts stipulated to by the parties: On July 10, 1973, the plaintiff was sentenced to a term of not less than eighteen months nor more than six years by the Superior Court in Hartford County for the crime of larceny in the first degree. The plaintiff was arrested on September 28, 1972, on the charges which culminated in that sentence. The only bond or bail ever ordered on the charges for which the plaintiff was arrested was a $1000 nonsurety bond which was ordered on the date of his arrest. The plaintiff furnished this bail on the date of his arrest and was released from custody on that date. During the period from September 28, 1972, to July 10, 1973, the plaintiff was never in custody under a mittimus dealing with the charges for which he was arrested and sentenced in the Superior Court in Hartford County. He was not credited with any so-called jail time under the provisions of §§ 18-97 ¹ or 18-98 ² of the General Statutes on his July 10, 1973 sentence from the Superior Court in Hartford County.

On May 2, 1973, while he was free on bond furnished to the Superior Court in Hartford County, the plaintiff was also sentenced to a term of not less than two nor more than five years by the Superior Court for the judicial district of Waterbury for the crime of robbery in the third degree in violation of § 53a-136 of the General Statutes. He was arrested on November 17, 1972, on the charges for which the Waterbury sentence was imposed and on failing to post bond in the amount of $5000 was confined under a mittimus for a period of 162 days prior to the imposition of sentence. The parties stipulated that pursuant to the provisions of 'Section 18-97 and/or Section 18-98' of the General Statutes he was credited with 162 days of socalled jail time on that sentence.

On May 2, 1973, the plaintiff was also sentenced to terms of not less than two nor more than five years by the Superior Court in Tolland County on each of two counts. The first sentence and count was for the crime of robbery in the second degree, in violation of § 53a-135(a)(1) of the General Statutes. The second sentence and count was for the crime of larceny in the second degree in violation of 53a-123(a)(2). In that case the plaintiff was arrested on October 13, 1972, and, upon failure to furnish bond in the amount of $10,000, was confined under a mittimus for a period of 197 days prior to the imposition of sentence. In connection with the sentence from that court, he was credited with 197 days of 'jail time.'

In the present habeas corpus proceeding, the plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to credit on his July 10, 1973 sentence from the Superior Court in Hartford County for 197 days, being the period during which he was in custody under a mittimus from the Superior Court in Tolland County awaiting disposition of the charges pending against him in that court. His claim as stated in the stipulation of the parties is that 'his inability to make bond on the charge which culminated in the sentences from . . . (The judicial district of) Waterbury and Tolland County effectively denied him his ability to make bond on the charges which culminated in his sentence from Hartford County.'

The trial court, upon the foregoing stipulated facts, granted the petitioner the relief requested and rendered judgment directing that he be credited with 197 days on the sentence imposed in the Superior Court in Hartford County. It is from this judgment that the defendant took the present appeal.

The defendant's assignment of errors raises but one narrow issue on appeal which is whether on the stipulated facts the provisions of § 18-98 of the General Statutes entitle the defendant to credit against the July 10, 1973 sentence imposed by the Superior Court in Hartford County, the 197 days during which he was confined by mittimus from the Superior Court in Tolland County awaiting trial on the charges against him in that court. Although the stipulated facts refer to § 18-97 as well as § 18-98, § 18-97 clearly affords no relief to the plaintiff since, as those facts disclose, during the period from September 28, 1972, to July 10, 1973, the plaintiff was never in custody under a mittimus relating to the charges for which he was arrested and sentenced in Hartford. The plaintiff has limited his claims to rights which he asserts accrued to him under § 18-98.

As we have noted, § 18-98 of the General Statutes, pursuant to which the trial court credited the petitioner with 197 days of presentence confinement on his sentence from Superior Court in Hartford County provides that '(a)ny person who has been denied bail or who has been unable to obtain bail and who is subsequently imprisoned is entitled to commutation of his sentence by the number of days which he spent in a community correctional center from the time he was denied or was unable to obtain bail to the time he was so imprisoned.'

The language of the statute is clear and unambiguous. Courts cannot, by construction, read into statutes privisions which are not clearly stated. Robinson v. Guman, 163 Conn. 439, 444, 311 A.2d 57; United Aircraft Corporation v. Fusari, 163 Conn. 401, 415, 311 A.2d 65. 'It is not for us to search out some intent which we may believe the legislature actually had and give effect to it, but we are confined to the intention which is expressed in the words it has used.' Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Walsh, 134 Conn. 295, 301, 57 A.2d 128, 131.

'It is a cardinal rule of construction that statutes are to be construed so that they carry out the intent of the legislature. This intent is to be ascertained from the language of the statute itself, if the language is plain and unambiguous. Hurlbut v. Lemelin, 155 Conn. 68, 73, 230 A.2d 36; Landry v. Personnel Appeal Board, 138 Conn. 445, 447, 86 A.2d 70. Where the legislative intent is clear there is no...