Should Connecticut prisons notify inmates about untried charges before a warrant is served?

Plain-English summary

In 2005, Connecticut's correction commissioner asked whether prisons should stop sending speedy trial paperwork for arrest warrants that had not been served, after court staff said those matters were not yet pending. The AG advised continuing the department's notice practice for known untried indictments or informations. He said correction staff might not know whether filing or service had occurred, and the courts could decide whether a particular case was ripe for speedy trial treatment.

The opinion acknowledged uncertainty about how an appellate court would resolve the interaction between the notice duty and the pending charge requirement. Its answer was to continue notifying inmates, not to declare every unserved warrant an active speedy trial case.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2005. 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.

Correction officials at the time

The AG read § 54-82c (c) as imposing a notice obligation distinct from the trial deadline provision. Where officials knew of an untried indictment or information, he advised written notice even if service was uncertain.

Inmates and court staff at the time

The opinion did not settle whether an unserved warrant triggered the trial clock. It left the filing and ripeness question to the court system while preserving the inmate notice step.

Common questions

Q: Should a prison withhold notice until an arrest warrant is served?
A: The AG advised against that; officials should continue notifying inmates of known untried indictments or informations.

Q: Did that mean every unserved warrant started the speedy trial deadline?
A: No. The opinion separated notice by correction officials from whether a charge was pending for the trial deadline, an issue he described as uncertain.

Background and statutory framework

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-82c (a) concerned the trial deadline after a qualifying inmate request on a pending indictment or information. Section 54-82c (c) required custodial officials to inform inmates of known untried charges and their request right. The AG found the notice task prudent despite conflicting trial court guidance about unserved matters.

Citations and references

Statutes cited in the opinion: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-82c (a); § 54-82c (c).

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/2005-formal-opinions/theresa-c-lantz-commissioner-department-of-correction-2005013-formal-opinion-attorney-general-of-con

Original opinion text

Theresa C. Lantz, Commissioner, Department of Correction, 2005-013 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal

May 18, 2005

Theresa C. Lantz

Commissioner

Department of Correction

24 Wolcott Hill Road

Wethersfield, CT 06109

Dear Commissioner Lantz:

You have requested our advice on whether the Department of Correction should continue to follow its procedure of initiating speedy trial paperwork for an arrest warrant that has not been served. You advised us that the Court Operations Division of the Judicial Branch sent you a memorandum in which they indicate that the right to a speedy trial does not apply to an arrest warrant that has not been served. They attached a trial court memorandum of decision in the case of State v. Robinson, dated September 6, 2002 in support of their statement. They advised you that the courts will return any speedy trial paperwork that you send for matters in which an inmate has not yet been arrested. For the reasons discussed below, it is our opinion that you should continue to follow your procedure.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-82c (a) provides in relevant part as follows:

Whenever a person has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a correctional institution of this state and, during the continuance of the term of imprisonment, there is pending in this state any untried indictment or information against such prisoner, he shall be brought to trial within one hundred twenty days after he has caused to be delivered, to the state's attorney or assistant state's attorney of the judicial district or geographical area, in which the indictment or information is pending, and to the appropriate court, written notice of the place of his imprisonment and his request for final disposition to be made of the indictment or information . . . .
Subsection (c) of section 54-82c states:

The warden, Community Correctional Center Administrator or other official having custody of the prisoner shall promptly inform him in writing of the source and contents of any untried indictment or information against him concerning which the warden, administrator or other official has knowledge and of his right to make a request for final disposition thereof.
In State v. Robinson, Docket No. NNH-CR02-0002608-T (September 6, 2002), Judge Blue concluded that "Sec. 54-82c applies only if, during the continuance of the term of imprisonment, there is pending in this state any untried indictment or information against such prisoner" and "that information [or indictment must] be filed in order to be 'pending'." (Emphasis added) Judge Blue, referring to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-82c (a), stated that a case is not "pending" if it has not yet been filed in court. The Court Support Division of the Judicial Department interprets the Robinson decision as holding that the right to a speedy trial does not apply to an arrest warrant that has not yet been served.

On the other hand, in State v. Milton, 26 Conn. App. 698 at 708-709 (1992), affirmed, 224 Conn. 163 (1992), the Court held that whenever any correctional official acquires information that makes him aware of the existence of an untried indictment or information against a sentenced inmate, he must comply with the provision of section 54-82c (c) and inform the inmate in writing of the untried indictment or information. While Milton refers several times to "pending" cases, it does not expressly limit its holding to informations or indictments which have been filed in court.

The obligation placed on correctional officials under section 54-82c (c) is distinct from that placed on the courts and prosecuting attorneys under subsection (a) of section 54-82c. Moreover, correctional officials would not necessarily know whether a filing or service has occurred. It would appear that the court clerk's office would be in a better position to know whether the criminal proceedings are ripe for consideration under section 54-82c.

We have no way of knowing whether the holding in State v. Robinson would be approved by an appellate court, nor, if so, whether an appellate court would extend the holding of Robinson under § 54-82c (a) to the application of § 54-82c (c), nor how an appellate court might apply the holding in Milton to an unserved indictment or information. In light of these uncertainties, the prudent course is for the Department to continue to provide notice to inmates under § 54-82c (c) of all untried indictments or informations of which it becomes aware, whether they have been served or not. This can cause no harm beyond a degree of inconvenience. On the other hand, failure to provide notice creates at least some risk that some valid criminal charges will ultimately be dismissed because of procedural error.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Henri Alexandre

Assistant Attorney General