Elliott v. Commissioner of Correction
This text of 587 A.2d 124 (Elliott v. Commissioner of Correction) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The petitioner, Robin Elliott, was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of eight to sixteen years in 1974, and was later sentenced to a term of three to six years for escape in 1977. The two sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Elliott claims that under General Statutes § 18-71 the three to six year [585]*585sentence that was imposed in 1977 should be aggregated with his eight to sixteen year sentence and construed as one continuous term of imprisonment of eleven to twenty-two years. If so construed, he argues, he is entitled to receive good time credit at the rate of fifteen days per month under General Statutes § 18-7a (a)2 on his three to six year sentence immediately upon his discharge from his initial eight to six[586]*586teen year term. The respondent commissioner of correction, on the other hand, contends that § 18-7 has no application to Elliott’s three to six year sentence because that sentence was imposed after October 1, 1976. The respondent consequently has refused to aggregate Elliott’s sentences. The respondent, rather, has required that Elliott serve his consecutive sentences as two separate and distinct terms and that he be released or paroled from his eight to sixteen year sentence before commencing to serve his three to six year sentence. As a result, Elliott will receive good time credit pursuant to § 18-7a (a) at the rate of only ten days per month for the first five years of his three to six year sentence instead of the fifteen days per month he would receive if his sentences were aggregated.
The petitioner, Edward Boyle, was sentenced on January 4,1982, in the judicial district of Hartford, to a term of imprisonment of six to twelve years and on July 20,1983, was sentenced in the judicial district of Tolland to a term of fifteen to thirty years.* *3 Boyle’s fifteen to thirty year sentence was ordered by the sentencing judge in Tolland to be served consecutively to his initial six to twelve year term.4 In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Boyle claims that under § 18-7 [587]*587his sentences should be construed as one continuous term of imprisonment of twenty-one to forty-two years. The respondent maintains, however, that § 18-7 has no application to Boyle because he was sentenced after October 1, 1976, and therefore is not entitled to have his sentences aggregated. The respondent instead has treated Boyle’s consecutive sentences as two separate and distinct terms. That treatment of his sentences requires that he be released or paroled from his six to twelve year sentence before he, in effect, starts over and begins serving his fifteen to thirty year sentence. If the respondent is correct, Boyle will serve the first five years of his fifteen to thirty year sentence receiving good time credit at the rate of only ten days per month. If Boyle is correct and his sentences are construed as one continuous term, he will be entitled to receive good time credit for the sixth and subsequent years of his aggregated sentences at the rate of fifteen days per month under § 18-7a (a).
Both of these cases are controlled by our decision published this same date in McCarthy v. Warden, 217 Conn. 568, 587 A.2d 116 (1991). In McCarthy, we concluded that § 18-7 mandates the aggregation of consecutive sentences imposed subsequent to October 1, 1976, as well as those imposed before that date. Id. That conclusion requires that the petitioners’ consecutive sentences be aggregated under § 18-7 and that their sentences be construed, as to each petitioner, as one continuous term of imprisonment for the purpose of calculating good time credits.
In view of our disposition of the petitioners’ principal claim, it is unnecessary to consider their constitutional arguments. Manchester Sand & Gravel Co. v. South Windsor, 203 Conn. 267, 270, 524 A.2d 621 (1987); State v. Williams, 200 Conn. 310, 322, 511 A.2d [588]*5881000 (1986); Alexander v. Robinson, 185 Conn. 540, 548, 441 A.2d 166 (1981).
The judgment is affirmed in both cases.
In this opinion the other justices concurred.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
587 A.2d 124, 217 Conn. 584, 1991 Conn. LEXIS 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-commissioner-of-correction-conn-1991.