Title: Bates v. Commissioner of Correction
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC17414
State: Connecticut
Issuer: Connecticut Supreme Court
Date: March 20, 2007

******************************************************
The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the
beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will
be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the
date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative
date for the beginning of all time periods for filing
postopinion motions and petitions for certification is
the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion.
In no event will any such motions be accepted before
the ‘‘officially released’’ date.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the
event of discrepancies between the electronic version
of an opinion and the print version appearing in the
Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con-
necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the
latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying
the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official
Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service
and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes
of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of
the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro-
duced and distributed without the express written per-
mission
of
the
Commission
on
Official
Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
******************************************************
EARL BATES v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
(SC 17414)
Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Sullivan, Js.
Argued February 7—officially released March 20, 2007
David B. Rozwaski, for the appellant (petitioner).
Richard T. Biggar, assistant attorney general, with
whom, on the brief, was Richard Blumenthal, attorney
general, for the appellee (respondent).
Opinion
PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Earl Bates, appeals
from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the
judgment of the habeas court, which had denied his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Bates v. Commis-
sioner of Correction, 86 Conn. App. 777, 784, 863 A.2d
246 (2005). The Appellate Court concluded that the
habeas court properly determined that the department
of correction (department) properly had deducted
eighty-five days from the petitioner’s statutory good
time credit that had been credited to the petitioner
several years after it had been earned pursuant to our
decision in Rivera v. Commissioner of Correction, 254
Conn. 214, 756 A.2d 1264 (2000). We granted the peti-
tioner’s petition for certification to appeal limited to
the following issue: ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly
affirm the habeas court’s denial of the petitioner’s peti-
tion for a writ of habeas corpus?’’ Bates v. Commis-
sioner of Correction, 273 Conn. 928, 873 A.2d 996 (2005).
We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the
following facts and procedural history. ‘‘The petitioner
was the defendant in a criminal case . . . in which he
was convicted of violations of [General Statutes] § 21a-
277 (a) and (b). He was sentenced to a total effective
[term] of three years [incarceration] on March 13, 1991.
On the same date and in the same court, he was sen-
tenced . . . to another three (3) year sentence for a
violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a) to run con-
current to the first [sentence]. The petitioner was also
the defendant in a third criminal case . . . in which
he was found to have violated General Statutes §§ 53a-
59 (a) (1), 29-35 and 29-37 (b). On July 31, 1992, he was
sentenced to a total effective sentence of nine (9) years.
Finally, the petitioner was the defendant in a fourth
criminal case . . . in which he was convicted of vari-
ous offenses and sentenced to a total effective sentence
of two (2) years, nine (9) months, to run consecutive
to the existing sentence.
‘‘During his incarceration, the petitioner was found
guilty of numerous disciplinary violations for which he
lost statutory good time credit [that he had received
pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 18-7a (c)].1
. . . During his incarceration on his first sentence
between March 13, 1991, and July 31, 1992, the peti-
tioner earned a total of 166 days of statutory good time
credit. He earned an additional 232 days of statutory
good time credit between July 31, 1992, and July 31,
1994. On August 1, 1994, the petitioner was placed in
restricted housing and thereafter so long as he remained
in this status . . . lost the right to earn any statutory
good time credit. The petitioner was held in the pretrial
custody of the respondent [commissioner of correction]
in lieu of bond for a total of twenty-four days under
his original sentence . . . . There was no pretrial cus-
tody credit for any of his other convictions, as he was
already a convicted prisoner.’’ (Internal quotation
marks omitted.) Bates v. Commissioner of Correction,
supra, 86 Conn. App. 778–79.
‘‘Between July 31, 1992, and August 1, 1994, the date
the petitioner entered restrictive housing, the petitioner
earned 232 days of statutory good time credit. During
that same period, the petitioner accrued 160 days of
forfeiture.2 The petitioner received two disciplinary
tickets in May, 1993, both resulting in ninety day forfei-
tures. The first ticket, dated May 14, 1993, resulted in
a forfeiture of all of the petitioner’s earned statutory
good time credit to that date. The petitioner also
received a second disciplinary ticket dated May 26,
1993, resulting in another ninety day forfeiture. As a
result of the May 14, 1993 disciplinary ticket, however,
the petitioner did not have any earned statutory good
time against which forfeiture resulting from the May
26, 1993 ticket could be deducted. The petitioner did,
however, continue to earn statutory good time credit
after the May 26, 1993 disciplinary ticket until August,
1994, when he entered restrictive housing. As of August
1, 1994, the petitioner had a balance of seventy-two
days of statutory good time credit. In accord with the
decision in Nichols v. Warren, [209 Conn. 191, 550 A.2d
309 (1988)], the forfeiture resulting from the May 26,
1993 ticket was not deducted from his later earned
statutory good time credit.
‘‘In December, 2000, the petitioner received 166 days
of statutory good time credit that he earned on his 1991
sentence, which should have been carried over to his
1992 sentence [pursuant to Rivera v. Commissioner of
Correction, supra, 254 Conn. 217 (prisoner who is serv-
ing multiple concurrent and consecutive sentences is
entitled to have his total number of earned good time
credits applied to reduce his total effective term of
imprisonment)]. The petitioner also accrued eighty-five
days of forfeiture due to disciplinary sanctions during
his 1991 sentence. The total number of days that could
have been carried over from the petitioner’s 1991 sen-
tence, as of July 31, 1992, therefore, was eighty-one
days of statutory good time credit. . . .
‘‘Upon commencement of his 1992 sentence, the peti-
tioner began to earn ten days of statutory good time
credit each month. From September, 1992, to May, 1993,
the petitioner earned ninety days of statutory good time
credit. Had the eighty-one days of credit from his 1991
sentence been posted to his time sheet, the petitioner
would have had 171 days of earned statutory good time
credit. In May, 1993, as previously discussed, the peti-
tioner received two disciplinary tickets, each resulting
in ninety day forfeitures, for a total of 180 days of
forfeiture. Therefore, [the department calculated that]
as of the end of May, 1993, the petitioner’s total earned
statutory good time credit had been forfeited.’’ Bates
v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 86 Conn. App.
781–83.
The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition claiming
that the department’s deduction of the good time that
he would have forfeited while serving his 1991 and 1992
sentences had good time credit been available from the
166 days of statutory good time that was credited to
him in 2000 was improper under Nichols v. Warren,
supra, 209 Conn. 204 (concluding that prospective for-
feiture of good time credit is not permitted under Gen-
eral Statutes [Rev. to 1985] § 18-7a [c]). See Bates v.
Commissioner of Correction, supra, 86 Conn. App. 780.
The habeas court denied the petition. Id., 778. The peti-
tioner then filed a petition for certification to appeal
to the Appellate Court, which the habeas court denied.
Id., 780–81. The petitioner thereafter appealed to the
Appellate Court claiming that the trial court improperly
had denied: (1) his petition for certification to appeal;
and (2) his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Appel-
late Court concluded that the habeas court improperly
had denied the petitioner’s petition for certification to
appeal;3 id., 780; but rejected the petitioner’s claim that
the habeas court improperly had denied his petition for
habeas corpus. Id., 781–84. This certified appeal
followed.
After examining the record on appeal and fully con-
sidering the briefs and arguments of the parties, we
conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court
should be affirmed. Part III of the thoughtful and com-
prehensive opinion of the Appellate Court properly
resolved the issue in this certified appeal. See id. Fur-
ther discussion by this court would serve no useful
purpose. See, e.g., State v. Butler, 255 Conn. 828, 830,
769 A.2d 697 (2001).
The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.
1 General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 18-7a (c) provides: ‘‘Any person sen-
tenced to a term of imprisonment for an offense committed on or after July
1, 1983, may, while held in default of bond or while serving such sentence,
by good conduct and obedience to the rules which have been established
for the service of his sentence, earn a reduction of his sentence as such
sentence is served in the amount of ten days for each month served and
pro rata for a part of a month served of a sentence up to five years, and
twelve days for each month served and pro rata for a part of a month served
for the sixth and each subsequent year of a sentence which is more than
five years. Misconduct or refusal to obey the rules which have been estab-
lished for the service of his sentence shall subject the prisoner to the loss
of all or any portion of such reduction by the commissioner or his designee.’’
2 ‘‘General Statutes § 18-7a (c); see Nichols v. Warren, [209 Conn. 191,
193 n.1, 550 A.2d 309 (1988)] (noting that statutory good time credit may
be reduced by forfeitures arising from [misconduct or refusal to obey the
rules of a correctional facility).’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bates
v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 86 Conn. App. 782 n.2.
3 The department has not challenged this conclusion in part II of the
Appellate Court opinion and it is not at issue in this certified appeal.