Court Opinion

ID: 9749459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:45:28.216277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:10.973922
License: Public Domain

Arthur H. Healey, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result reached by the majority. I write separately to set forth that I find no “constitutional problems posed by § 53a-38 (c), if read as the defendant commissioner proposes,” nor do I believe, as does the majority, that there is any necessity “to avoid constitutional difficulties” in construing § 53a-38 (c) in the context of this appeal. Additionally, North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S. Ct. 2072, 23 L. Ed. 2d 656 (1969), need not be imported into the disposition of this appeal.
This appeal presents a straightforward question of statutory construction. We have recently stated *133that “[i]n interpreting ‘the language of a legislative enactment, “[w]e are confined to the intention which is expressed in the words which the legislature has used.” [Citation omitted.] “ ‘The intention of the legislature is found not in what it meant to say, but in the meaning of what it did say. ’ ” ’ ” Delevieleuse v. Manson, 184 Conn. 434, 438, 439 A.2d 1055 (1981); Frazier v. Manson, 176 Conn. 638, 642, 410 A.2d 475 (1979).
Sections 53a-38, 18-7 and 18-7a appear to be plain and unambiguous. Section 53a-38 is concerned with the calculation of terms of imprison^ ment; subsection (c) of that section provides that when a sentence of imprisonment which has been imposed is vacated and a new sentence imposed, the “new sentence shall be calculated as if it had commenced at the time the vacated sentence commenced, and all time served under or credited against the vacated sentence shall be credited against the new sentence.” This statute does not specifically apply to “good time”; it does not specify what type of “credit” it refers to. Sections 18-7 and 18-7a, which were construed by us in Frazier v. Manson, supra, apply specifically to “good time.” All three of these statutes cover the same subject matter, i.e., credits against a person sentenced to a term of imprisonment, although, as pointed out, the ambit of § 53a-38 is much broader than that of either § 18-7 or § 18-7a. There is, however, no conflict between § 53a-38 and § 18-7a in this case. This is so because “[i]t is a well-settled principle of construction that specific terms covering the given subject matter will prevail over general language of the same or another statute which might otherwise prove controlling.” (Emphasis added.) Kepner v. United States, 195 *134U.S. 100, 125, 24 S. Ct. 797, 49 L. Ed. 114 (1904), quoted in Charlton Press, Inc. v. Sullivan, 153 Conn. 103, 110, 214 A.2d 354 (1965), and in Oles v. Furlong, 134 Conn. 334, 342, 57 A.2d 405 (1948). “The provisions of one statute which specifically focus on a particular problem will always, in the absence of express contrary legislative intent, be held to prevail over provisions of a different statute more general in its coverage. See, e.g., Kepner v. United States, [supra, 125].” General Electric Credit Corporation v. James Talcott, Inc., 271 F. Sup. 699, 705 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). Therefore, we need not reach, in this case, any question of constitutional difficulties that may be posed by § 53a-38, and a consideration of Pearce is not triggered.1 This approach is consistent with our pronouncements that it is to be presumed that the legislature does not deliberately enact ineffective and unconstitutional laws; see, e.g., Whitfield v. Empire Mutual Ins. Co., 167 Conn. 499, 507-508, 356 A.2d 139 (1975); Amsel v. Brooks, 141 Conn. 288, 294-95, 106 A.2d 152, appeal dismissed, 348 U.S. 880, 75 S. Ct. 125, 99 L. Ed. 693 (1954); and that the legislature, in enacting a statute, does so in view of existing relevant statutes intending that it be read with them so as to make one consistent body of law. Cicala v. Administrator, 161 Conn. 362, 365, 288 A.2d 66 (1971) and cases there cited.

 We have long held that “[constitutional issues are not considered -unless absolutely necessary to the decision of a case; Crandall v. State, 10 Conn. 339, 366 [1834]; 16 Am. Jur. 2d., Constitutional Law, §§ 111, 113 . . . .” (Emphasis added.) State v. DellaCamera, 166 Conn. 557, 560-61, 353 A.2d 750 (1974); see also Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 307, 100 S. Ct. 2671, 65 L. Ed. 2d 784 (1980).