Connecticut Statutes

§ 18-7a — Good conduct credit for prisoners.

Connecticut § 18-7a
JurisdictionConnecticut
Title 18Correctional Institutions and Department of Correction
Ch. 320Correctional Institutions

This text of Connecticut § 18-7a (Good conduct credit for prisoners.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-7a (2026).

Text

(a)Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, any person sentenced to a term of imprisonment, on and after October 1, 1976, and while still serving such sentence whether such sentence is for a definite, indefinite or indeterminate term, and regardless of the institution wherein the prisoner is confined may, by good conduct and obedience to the rules which have been established for the service of his sentence, earn a commutation or diminution of his sentence in the amount of ten days for each month, and pro rata for a part of a month, of a sentence which is for not more than five years, and fifteen days for each month, and pro rata for a part of a month, for the sixth and each subsequent year of a sentence of more than five years. In the case of an indeterminate sentenc

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

Related

Kendall v. Warden, No. Cv 941941s (Oct. 23, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 7912 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
1 case citations
Bates v. Warden, No. Cv97-0002548 (Nov. 14, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 14588 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Robare v. Warden, No. Cv95-0547759 (Mar. 11, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 2858 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Blakeney v. Warden, State Prison, No. Cv 93 1744 S (Jan. 5, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 69 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Durham v. Warden and Board of Parole, No. 554856 (Jan. 12, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 1029 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Doehrer v. Commissioner of Corrections, No. Cv 98-0585276 S (Feb. 14, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 1855 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Blakeney v. Warden, State Prison, No. Cv 94 1830 S (Jan. 10, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 51 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Connelly v. Warden, No. Cv-97-0567686 (Jan. 11, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 488 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Huguenin v. Warden, No. Cv00-3128 (Jun. 13, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 7587 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Mc Commic v. Warden, No. Cv 94 1895 S (May 3, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 4289 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Quint v. Warden, No. Cv96 0560356 (Mar. 11, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 2859 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Wilson v. Department of Correction, No. Cv-98-0580590 (May 19, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 5739 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Beasley v. Commissioner of Corrections, No. Cv95-2059 (May 12, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 5859 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Morales v. Lefebure
(D. Connecticut, 2021)
Stewart v. Ayala
(D. Connecticut, 2022)
Harris v. Meulemans
389 F. Supp. 2d 438 (D. Connecticut, 2005)

Legislative History

(P.A. 76-358, S. 2; P.A. 80-442, S. 1, 28; P.A. 82-379, S. 1, 2; P.A. 97-169; P.A. 15-14, S. 4.) History: P.A. 80-442 added Subsec. (b); P.A. 82-379 added Subsec. (c) re computation of good time for any person sentenced to term of imprisonment for offense committed on or after July 1, 1983; P.A. 97-169 amended Subsec. (c) to add provision requiring lost good time be deducted from good time earned in the future if the prisoner has not yet earned sufficient good time to satisfy the good time loss; P.A. 15-14 amended Subsecs. (a) and (b) by making technical changes. Section satisfies the rational basis test consistent with command of the equal protection clause. 176 C. 638. Held that credits be calculated according to statute in effect at time of resentencing rather than according to statute effective at time of original sentence. 185 C. 124. Cited. Id., 540; 205 C. 27; 207 C. 412; 209 C. 191; 216 C. 220. Aggregation of consecutive sentences in computation of good-time credit discussed. 217 C. 568. Cited. Id., 584; 219 C. 269; 230 C. 17. Cited. 24 CA 612; 30 CA 190; 34 CA 503; 39 CA 455. Applicable to confinements including commitment pursuant to Sec. 19-498(a). 35 CS 544. Cited. 44 CS 417. Subsec. (b): Prisoner's enhanced statutory good time commences at the 6th year of his sentence as imposed by the court, without regard to any presentence confinement time or presentence good time. 245 C. 423. Subsec. (c): Prospective forfeiture of unearned good time credit is not permitted. 209 C. 191. Statutory good time calculation and credit discussed. 219 C. 269. Two statements in Seno v. Commissioner of Correction were factually and legally inaccurate, thus trial court decision construing Subsec. (b) based in part on Seno was inaccurate. 245 C. 423. “One continuous term” language of Sec. 18-7 is applicable to Subsec. and good time credits earned on an earlier sentence must be credited towards a controlling, subsequently imposed concurrent sentence. 254 C. 214. Petitioner eligible to be considered for award of good time credit under Subsec. for duration of commitment to mental health facility. 258 C. 394. Cited. 17 CA 827; 36 CA 695; 39 CA 674; 43 CA 176. Commissioner may promulgate rules that make an inmate ineligible to earn statutory good time. 50 CA 421. Good time credit received under section must be interpreted as credit earned in the year it should have been given and in this case, adjustment of respondent's time was not a retroactive adjustment, but rather a correction. 86 CA 777. Habeas court found to have improperly determined that petitioner was not eligible for good time credits; court's interpretation of good time statutes has the potential of burdening defendant in such a manner so as to conclude that the statutes are penal in nature; in resolving a latent ambiguity as to whether defendant was eligible for good time credits, the rule of lenity applied. 101 CA 52. Viewed within context of section, the phrase “term of imprisonment” is susceptible only to one reasonable interpretation, which is that it should be afforded its customary and primary meaning, describing the physical confinement of a person in a correctional facility; there is no basis in law or logic to conclude that it describes or encompasses time spent on probation. 105 CA 210. Subsec. contains no language providing that good time credit earned under Subsec. operates to reduce a person's parole eligibility date, and there is no language in Subsec. to suggest that legislature intended that a person's sentence, after it has been reduced by the application of good time credit, should serve as the sentence that is used to calculate his parole eligibility date under Sec. 54-125a(f). 199 CA 575.

Nearby Sections

15
View on official source ↗

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Connecticut § 18-7a, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ct/18-7a.