Doe v. Commissioner of Correction

Connecticut Appellate Court

Doe v. Commissioner of Correction

871 A.2d 1066, 88 Conn. App. 817, 2005 Conn. App. LEXIS 179

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedMay 10, 2005

DocketAC 25493

StatusPublished

This text of 871 A.2d 1066 (Doe v. Commissioner of Correction) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Doe v. Commissioner of Correction, 871 A.2d 1066, 88 Conn. App. 817, 2005 Conn. App. LEXIS 179 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, James Doe, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the denial of his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he claimed that he was being incarcerated illegally due to the improper application of presen-tence confinement credit to his sentence on criminal charges. We dismiss the appeal.

After a careful review of the record and briefs, we conclude that in light of General Statutes § 18-98d (a) [818]*818(1) , which governs the application of credit for presen-tence confinement, the court correctly determined the amount of credit to which the petitioner was entitled on the sentence for his underlying conviction of assault in the first degree and properly concluded that he was unable to accrue credit toward that sentence once he began serving another sentence for violation of probation. We further conclude that this sentence structure did not violate the petitioner’s plea agreement with the state in the assault file.

Because the court’s decision on the merits comports with the applicable statutes and is amply supported by the record, the petitioner cannot demonstrate (1) that the issues raised are debatable among jurists of reason, (2) that any court could resolve the issues in a different manner or (3) that the questions raised deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430, 431-32, 111 S. Ct. 860, 112 L. Ed. 2d 956 (1991). As the petitioner has failed to satisfy any of the Lozada criteria necessary to show that the court abused its discretion, his appeal following the court’s denial of certification is frivolous and should be dismissed. See Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 616, 646 A.2d 126 (1994).

The appeal is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, James Doe, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the denial of his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he claimed that he was being incarcerated illegally due to the improper application of presen-tence confinement credit to his sentence on criminal charges. We dismiss the appeal.

After a careful review of the record and briefs, we conclude that in light of General Statutes § 18-98d (a) [818]*818(1) , which governs the application of credit for presen-tence confinement, the court correctly determined the amount of credit to which the petitioner was entitled on the sentence for his underlying conviction of assault in the first degree and properly concluded that he was unable to accrue credit toward that sentence once he began serving another sentence for violation of probation. We further conclude that this sentence structure did not violate the petitioner’s plea agreement with the state in the assault file.

Because the court’s decision on the merits comports with the applicable statutes and is amply supported by the record, the petitioner cannot demonstrate (1) that the issues raised are debatable among jurists of reason, (2) that any court could resolve the issues in a different manner or (3) that the questions raised deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430, 431-32, 111 S. Ct. 860, 112 L. Ed. 2d 956 (1991). As the petitioner has failed to satisfy any of the Lozada criteria necessary to show that the court abused its discretion, his appeal following the court’s denial of certification is frivolous and should be dismissed. See Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 616, 646 A.2d 126 (1994).

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

871 A.2d 1066, 88 Conn. App. 817, 2005 Conn. App. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-commissioner-of-correction-connappct-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack