Murray v. Lopes, 13048
Decision Date | 18 August 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 13048,13048 |
Citation | 529 A.2d 1302,205 Conn. 27 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Glenn MURRAY v. Raymond M. LOPES, Commissioner of Correction, et al. |
Robert Graziano, Certified Legal Intern, with whom were Miriam Berkman and, on the brief, Stephen Wizner, John L. Pottenger, Jr., New Haven, Sally Zanger, Robert A. Solomon, New Haven, and Mary A. McCarthy, Law Student Intern, for appellant (petitioner).
Carl J. Schuman, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were L.D. McCallum, Asst. Atty. Gen., and, on the brief, Joseph I. Lieberman, Atty. Gen., and Robert Statchen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees (respondents).
Before ARTHUR H. HEALEY, SHEA, CALLAHAN, SANTANIELLO and GLASS, JJ.
This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the calculation of the petitioner's statutory good time credit. The petitioner has appealed from the judgment of the habeas court finding that, although statutory sentence reduction credit could be earned while confined at the Whiting Forensic Institute (Whiting), such credit could not be applied to gain early release while the petitioner was in the custody of the department of mental health pursuant to General Statutes § 17-245. We find error.
The relevant facts are undisputed. On February 6, 1985, the petitioner was arrested on a charge of risk of injury to a minor, in violation of General Statutes § 53-21. He was detained prior to trial in the Bridgeport Correctional Center until June 20, 1985, at which time he pleaded guilty to a substitute information charging him with the crime of sexual assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-72a(a). Prior to sentencing, the trial court, Moraghan, J., pursuant to General Statutes § 17-244(a), ordered the commissioner of mental health to conduct a mental examination of the petitioner at Whiting. Thereafter, in accordance with the report from Whiting and pursuant to § 17-245(c), the trial court, finding the petitioner to be mentally ill and a danger to himself or others, sentenced him as follows: The petitioner's confinement was calculated to begin on the date of sentencing, August 19, 1985, and his release was scheduled for February 19, 1987. This calculation did not afford the petitioner credit for presentence jail time pursuant to General Statutes § 18-98d(a), presentence jail good conduct or "good time" pursuant to General Statutes § 18-98d(b), or prison good time pursuant to General Statutes § 18-7a(c). If all the foregoing statutory sentence reduction credit had been applied to the petitioner's sentence for all the time he was confined, he would have been discharged from his confinement at Whiting on March 26, 1986.
On May 23, 1986, the petitioner, while still confined at Whiting, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that he had a statutory right to sentence reduction credit, and alternatively, that the state's practice of awarding good time and jail time credit to mentally ill convicts transferred from correctional facilities to Whiting pursuant to General Statutes §§ 17-194c through 17-194g and denying such credit to those convicts initially confined at Whiting, pursuant to § 17-245, denies him equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, §§ 1 and 20, of the Connecticut constitution. On July 3, 1986, the habeas court released its memorandum of decision holding that although the petitioner could earn prison good time credit while confined at Whiting, he could not use the credit to gain early release. The habeas court concluded that the accumulated sentence reduction credit could only be deducted from the petitioner's sentence, if, and when, he was transferred back to a correctional institution. The habeas court did not address the equal protection claim. This appeal followed.
The petitioner was released from Whiting pursuant to § 17-251(b), on August 18, 1986, prior to the filing of this appeal. All parties, 1 however, urge this court to address the issue raised in this appeal notwithstanding any mootness concerns.
Shays v. Local Grievance Committee, 197 Conn. 566, 571-72, 499 A.2d 1158 (1985).
The petitioner in this case was not released from Whiting unconditionally. The sentencing court released him to a two year period of probation, which will not be completed until August 18, 1988. Had the habeas court applied the statutory sentence reduction credit that the petitioner claims he is entitled to, he would have been released from confinement no later than May 26, 1986, and accordingly, would have completed his probation no later than May 26, 1988. Therefore, since our resolution of the issue presented in this appeal will affect his period of probation, the appeal is not moot.
General Statutes § 18-7a(c) 2 provides: "Any person sentenced to a term of imprisonment for an offense committed on or after July 1, 1983, may, while held in default of bond or while serving such sentence, by good conduct and obedience to the rules which have been established for the service of his sentence, earn a reduction of his sentence as such sentence is served...." (Emphasis added.) Similarly, General Statutes § 18-98d 3 provides (Emphasis added.) 4
In construing these provisions, the habeas court agreed with the petitioner's argument that time spent at Whiting was "imprisonment" for purposes of §§ 18-7a and 18-98d, and thus statutory good time credit could be earned by an individual sentenced in accordance with a conviction and confined at Whiting for custody, care and treatment pursuant to § 17-245(c). 5 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim error in this finding. 6 Rather, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in concluding that his accumulated sentence reduction credit should be withheld until he was returned to a correctional facility. We agree with the petitioner.
We have consistently held that if a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for construction. State v. James, 197 Conn. 358, 363, 497 A.2d 402 (1985); State v. Smith, 194 Conn. 213, 222, 479 A.2d 814 (1984); Moscone v. Manson, 185 Conn. 124, 128, 440 A.2d 848 (1981). Once the habeas court had determined that an individual sentenced in accordance with a conviction, and then confined at Whiting, was "imprisoned" within the meaning of General Statutes § 18-7a, it was bound to apply the law as written; Orticelli v. Powers, 197 Conn. 9, 13, 495 A.2d 1023 (1985); Muha v. United Oil Co., 180 Conn. 720, 730, 433 A.2d 1009 (1980); and direct the commissioner of correction to deduct from the petitioner's sentence the statutory reduction credit he had earned. Instead, the court went beyond the plain language of these statutory provisions to conclude that the application of such credit to the sentence of a prisoner confined at Whiting would conflict with the purpose of General Statutes § 17-251, 7 which, in conjunction with § 17-250, 8 provides for periodic examinations of patients at Whiting by the director of the institute and as ordered by the court. The habeas court, reasoning that the emphasis in § 17-251 was the person's mental condition, stated that the patient cannot be
We agree that jail time and good conduct credit provisions are not valid considerations in determining whether a patient at Whiting should be discharged from the institute, pursuant to General Statutes § 17-251, prior to the completion of his sentence. This provision, however, provides for discretionary release or transfer from Whiting based...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Meehan, 14556
...and sensible result that avoids placing a statute in constitutional jeopardy." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Murray v. Lopes, 205 Conn. 27, 36, 529 A.2d 1302 (1987). The plaintiff also argues that § 12-297 is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds because it impermissibly discri......
-
State v. Diaz
...held, and the cases are numerous, "that if a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for construction." Murray v. Lopes, 205 Conn. 27, 33, 529 A.2d 1302 (1987); see also State v. Milardo, 224 Conn. 397, 419, 618 A.2d 1347 (1993); State v. Cain, 223 Conn. 731, 744, 613 A.2d 804 (1......
-
State v. Cain
...course, "[w]e have consistently held that if a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for construction." Murray v. Lopes, 205 Conn. 27, 33, 529 A.2d 1302 (1987). Second, and more important, there is nothing to indicate that preserving 911 tapes is "unworkable." There may be some......
-
Dennis v. Comm'r of Corr.
...available to the petitioner, and, therefore, this appeal is not moot.Our Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Murray v. Lopes , 205 Conn. 27, 529 A.2d 1302 (1987). In Murray , the petitioner was sentenced to a two year period of confinement, followed by a period of probation. Id., at ......