James v. Commissioner of Correction

Summary

Justice Espinosa, joined by Justice Vertefeuille, dissents from the majority's conclusion that the statutory presentence-credit scheme is ambiguous and unconstitutional as applied. The dissent would interpret the statute to permit each day of presentence confinement to be counted only once and would hold that the petitioner was not entitled to credit for either the previously credited presentence confinement or the imprisonment served after his robbery sentence. The dissent also concludes that the federal decision relied on by the majority is factually distinguishable because it involved a conviction vacated on appeal rather than reprosecution following a mistrial.