Could Connecticut count hypothetical good time credits toward an inmate’s community placement date?

Plain-English summary

In September 1999, Connecticut’s AG advised the Department of Correction that it could not use good time credits an inmate might have earned to accelerate eligibility for an approved community correction program under § 18-100c. The opinion addressed people serving sentences for crimes committed on or after October 1, 1994. Under the state Supreme Court’s Velez decision, the good time statutes did not apply to that group, either to shorten the sentence or to bring forward the date for community placement.

The AG stated a concrete calculation: the inmate had to serve at least one half of the actual sentence imposed by the court before becoming eligible for the program. DOC had been crediting hypothetical good time for placement calculations even though it no longer reduced those inmates’ sentences. The opinion said that practice must end. It also said inmates already in community programs who had not reached the half-sentence mark without those credits had to return to correctional facilities until they met the requirement. The answer concerned eligibility timing; it did not promise placement once the threshold was reached.

Inmates and counsel at the time

The opinion made the court-imposed sentence, without hypothetical good time, the basis for the threshold for the covered crimes. Eligibility did not itself guarantee release into a program.

DOC staff at the time

The AG directed a change in calculations and addressed people already placed under the earlier practice. He based both instructions on Velez.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could hypothetical good time reduce the half-sentence threshold?
A: No, for crimes committed on or after October 1, 1994, as described in the opinion.

Q: What if an inmate had already entered a community program too early?
A: The AG said the inmate had to return to a correctional facility until the threshold was met.

Q: Did serving half the sentence guarantee community placement?
A: No. The opinion addressed when a person became eligible, not an automatic placement right.

Background and statutory framework

DOC sought guidance after Velez v Commissioner of Correction rejected good time deductions for the covered sentences. The AG applied that holding to the community placement date under § 18-100c and the good time exclusion in § 18-100d.

Citations and references

Statutes: Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 18-100c, 18-100d.

Case: Velez v Commissioner of Correction, 250 Conn. 536 (1999).

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/1999-formal-opinions/honorable-john-j-armstrong-commissioner-of-correction-1999010-formal-opinion-attorney-general-of-con

Original opinion text

Honorable John J. Armstrong, Commissioner of Correction, 1999-010 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

September 17, 1999

Honorable John J. Armstrong

Commissioner of Correction

24 Wolcott Hill Road

Wethersfield, CT 06109-1152

RE: Velez v Commissioner of Correction

Dear Commissioner Armstrong:

You recently requested our advice regarding the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision in Velez v Commissioner of Correction, 250 Conn. 536 (1999). Specifically, you have asked us for clarification with respect to this decision's impact on DOC's procedure for determining when inmates become eligible for release to an approved community correction program pursuant to §18-100c. You have advised us that although inmates convicted of a crime committed on or after October 1, 1994 do not receive good time credits to reduce the length of their sentences, DOC does credit such inmates with good time credits that would have been earned for the purpose of calculating eligibility for such community correction programs.

The Court in the Velez case held that "...§18-100d renders the good time statutes inapplicable to persons sentenced to a term of imprisonment for crimes committed on or after October 1, 1994." Velez, 250 Conn. at 552. The Court further held that "[c]onsequently, in calculating the date of their eligibility for community placement pursuant to §18-100c, the commissioner simply would not subtract any good time from one half of their court-imposed sentences, and they would have to serve one half of their sentences before becoming eligible for the transition to community placement". Id at 549. Thus the Court found that good time credits are no longer available to either decrease the length of the sentence of persons imprisoned for crimes committed on or after October 1, 1994 or to accelerate such persons' eligibility for community placement.

In light of the Connecticut Supreme Court's clear and unambiguous holding in Velez, our opinion is that you may not consider good time credits that could have been earned when calculating an inmate's eligibility for release to a community correction program pursuant to §18-100c. Rather, inmates must serve not less than one-half of the actual sentence imposed by the court before becoming eligible for such programs. It is our further opinion that if any inmates are currently participating in such programs and do not meet the eligibility requirements (i.e., have not served at least one-half of the definite sentence imposed by the Court without regard to good-time credits that may have been earned), such inmates must be returned to correctional facilities until such time as they meet these eligibility requirements.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

mqc