Connecticut Statutes
§ 18-98d — Credit for presentence confinement.
Connecticut § 18-98d
JurisdictionConnecticut
Title 18Correctional Institutions and Department of Correction
Ch. 325Department of Correction
This text of Connecticut § 18-98d (Credit for presentence confinement.) 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. § 18-98d (2026).
Text
(a)(1)(A) Any person who is confined to a community correctional center or a correctional institution for an offense committed on or after July 1, 1981, and prior to October 1, 2021, under a mittimus or because such person is unable to obtain bail or is denied bail shall, if subsequently imprisoned, earn a reduction of such person's sentence equal to the number of days which such person spent in such facility from the time such person was placed in presentence confinement to the time such person began serving the term of imprisonment imposed; provided (i) each day of presentence confinement shall be counted only once for the purpose of reducing all sentences imposed after such presentence confinement; and (ii) the provisions of this section shall only apply to a person for whom the existen
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Giuseppe Spina v. Department of Homeland Security
470 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2006)
Boyd v. Lantz
487 F. Supp. 2d 3 (D. Connecticut, 2007)
Gooden v. Comm'r of Corr.
150 A.3d 738 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2016)
Mezrioui v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
154 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D. Connecticut, 2001)
Miller v. Armstrong, No. 556844 (May 4, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 5879 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Durham v. Warden and Board of Parole, No. 554856 (Jan. 12, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 1029 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Justin v. Warden, No. Cv-99-0589510 (Mar. 9, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 4732 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Hamilton v. Warden, No. Cv 01-0811567 S (Dec. 3, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 15987 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Carpenter v. Warden, No. Cv 99-0549962s (Sep. 20, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 13378 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Harris v. Warden, State Prison, No. Cv98-0332089 S (Jun. 21, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 6601 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Cassius v. Warden, No. Cv 99 042 86 55 (Dec. 1, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 15094 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Abraham v. Warden, No. Cv 99-0425634 S (May 7, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 5809 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Davis v. Gates, No. 555544 (Jul. 18, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 9287 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Buster v. Warden, No. Cv 95 2048 S (Aug. 28, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 6094 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Torrice v. Warden, No. 91-1653 (Jun. 9, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 7051 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Rivera v. Warden, No. Cv 93 1746 S (May 21, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 5812 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Bernstein v. Warden, No. 562053 (Feb. 4, 2003)
2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 1898 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2003)
State v. Doehrer, No. Cr94 010 32 79 S (Dec. 10, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 16357 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Abraham v. Warden, No. Cv 99-0425634 S (May 12, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 7055-p (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Edwards v. Warden, No. 550747 (Apr. 2, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 4348 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Legislative History
(P.A. 80-442, S. 2, 28; P.A. 81-472, S. 41, 159; P.A. 01-78; P.A. 02-18, S. 2; P.A. 04-234, S. 13; P.A. 06-119, S. 3; P.A. 16-193, S. 33; P.A. 21-102, S. 21.) History: P.A. 81-472 made technical changes; P.A. 01-78 amended Subsec. (a) to designate existing provisions as Subdiv. (1), redesignate former Subdivs. (1) and (2) as Subparas. (A) and (B), respectively, and add new Subdiv. (2) re credit for presentence confinement in a police station or courthouse lockup and made technical changes throughout section; P.A. 02-18 amended Subsec. (a)(1) to increase from $10 to $50 the credit against a fine for each day spent in presentence confinement and amended Subsec. (b) to increase from $100 to $500 the good conduct reduction in an unremitted fine for each 30 days of presentence confinement; P.A. 04-234 amended Subsec. (a)(1) to replace the rate of $50 with “a per diem rate equal to the average daily cost of incarceration as determined by the Commissioner of Correction”, effective June 8, 2004; P.A. 06-119 amended Subsec. (b) to replace $500 with “ten times the average daily cost of incarceration as determined by the Commissioner of Correction” as the amount of the good conduct reduction of an unremitted fine that a person may receive for each 30 days of presentence confinement, effective July 1, 2006; P.A. 16-193 amended Subsec. (a)(2)(C) by substituting “subsection (g)” for “subsection (h)” in provision re sentencing pursuant to Sec. 14-227a; P.A. 21-102 amended Subsec. (a)(1) by making existing language Subsec. (a)(1)(A), adding “and prior to October 1, 2021”, redesignating existing Subsecs. (a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B) as Subsecs. (a)(1)(A)(i) and (a)(1)(A)(ii) and adding Subsec. (a)(1)(B) re a person confined on or after October 1, 2021. Cited. 184 C. 434; 196 C. 309; 201 C. 115; 205 C. 27; 209 C. 23; 215 C. 695; 219 C. 269. Presentence credit not authorized for persons awaiting or contesting extradition; presentence credit not authorized when prisoner not in custody or control of commissioner. 259 C. 855. Regarding claim that incarceration in another state while contesting extradition made section applicable, court held that persons who are confined in another state pending extradition are not similarly situated to persons who are confined in this state pending trial. 266 C. 596. Section requires transfer of credits from earlier imposed sentence to later imposed sentence when both sentences merge into one effective sentence under one docket number; if person serving term of imprisonment exercises right to pursue double jeopardy claim on charge for which sentence may run concurrently, person shall be entitled, in any subsequently imposed sentence, to reduction based on such presentence confinement. 327 C. 24. Cited. 30 CA 190; 36 CA 440; 39 CA 455; Id., 473; 45 CA 566. Presentence credit not authorized for persons awaiting or contesting extradition. 54 CA 11. Allocation of credit under section does not implicate fundamental right or burden a suspect class, and is rationally related to legitimate public purpose of ensuring that convicted offenders serve the full term of their sentences; respondent's allocation of pretrial confinement credit pursuant to section did not violate separation of powers doctrine; because legislature plays substantial role, in conjunction with the judiciary, in sentencing those convicted of criminal offenses, court could not conclude that statute, as applied by respondent, significantly interfered with judiciary's role in sentencing. 90 CA 460. Credits under section are only available to an individual committed to the custody of Commissioner of Correction and not to a person committed to any other authority, including a juvenile committed to Commissioner of Children and Families. 136 CA 373. The commissioner, rather than the sentencing court, is the proper authority to determine eligibility for presentence confinement credit and to apply such credit against a defendant's sentence after the sentence is imposed. 217 CA 453. Subsec. (a): Municipal police department is neither a community correctional center nor a correctional institution. 258 C. 394. When concurrent sentences are imposed on different dates, presentence confinement days accrued simultaneously on more than one docket are utilized fully on the date they are applied to first sentence; hence, they cannot be counted a second time to accelerate discharge date of any subsequent sentence without violating language of Subdiv. (1)(A). 271 C. 808. Section clearly requires that in order for petitioner to receive jail credit, he must request the credit from the sentencing court at the time of sentencing, and such timely request is thus a condition precedent to the court's ability to grant the credit. 294 C. 165. Court reiterated holding that each day of presentence confinement, regardless of the number of informations under which such confinement accrues, should be counted only once and credited to only one day of sentenced confinement. 80 CA 574. Each day of presentence confinement, regardless of the number of informations under which such confinement accrues, should be counted once and credited to only one day of sentenced confinement. Id., 580. Petitioner cannot earn presentence confinement credit while serving sentence. 83 CA 77. Pretrial confinement credit shall be used only once. 94 CA 283. Recalculation of petitioner's presentence confinement credit in wake of Harris v. Commissioner of Correction did not violate petitioner's right to equal protection, constitute an ex post facto violation or violate the separation of powers doctrine. 104 CA 793. Subsec. (b): “One continuous term” language of Sec. 18-7 is applicable to presentence good time credit earned under Subsec. and presentence good time credits earned on one sentence may be credited toward a subsequent, controlling concurrent sentence. 254 C. 214. Subsec. (c): Commissioner of Correction is proper authority to ensure defendant receives all presentence confinement credit due. 218 CA 302.
Nearby Sections
15
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
Connecticut § 18-98d, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ct/18-98d.