Valle v. Commissioner of Correction
701 A.2d 338, 243 Conn. 909, 1997 Conn. LEXIS 389
Opinion
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 45 Conn. App. 566 (AC 16015), is granted, limited to the following issue:
“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that a prisoner serving multiple concurrent sentences imposed by different courts on different dates is entitled to have presentence confinement credit applied to each of these sentences when that credit represents the same period of presentence confinement?”
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Valle v. Commissioner of Correction, 701 A.2d 338, 243 Conn. 909, 1997 Conn. LEXIS 389 (Colo. 1997).
701 A.2d 338 (Valle v. Commissioner of Correction) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Washington v. Commissioner of Correction
950 A.2d 1220 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2008)
Judd v. Warden, No. Cv00-0003267 (Nov. 12, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 14408 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Valle v. Commissioner of Correction
711 A.2d 722 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1998)