Supreme Court of Connecticut
State v. Hurdle
December 10, 2024350 Conn. 770
Summary
The court held that a trial court has discretionary authority under § 18-98d to direct the commissioner of correction, through the judgment mittimus, to apply statutorily authorized presentence confinement credit for specified dates. It also held that the defendant's plea agreement did not promise credit for time served on unrelated sentences and that his unreasonable subjective belief did not invalidate the agreement. The judgment was reversed in part and remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion regarding the credit request.