Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 18 — · Chapter 325 — Department of Correction
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-97 (2026)

Confinement under a mittimus: Presentence confinement credit prior to July 1, 1981

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person receiving a fine or a sentence to a correctional institution or a community correctional center for an offense committed prior to July 1, 1981, shall receive credit towards any portion of such fine as is not remitted or any portion of such sentence as to which execution is not suspended for any days spent in custody under a mittimus as a result of any court proceeding for the offense or acts for which such fine or sentence is imposed, provided he shall conform to the rules of the institution. Upon notification from the Commissioner of Correction, the clerk of the court shall enter such credit upon the order in the case of a fine, and upon the mittimus in the case of a sentence and it shall be the duty of the agency or person that held such person under such mittimus to inform the clerk of the court of the proper amount of such credit. In the case of a fine each credit day shall be computed at the rate of ten dollars. In no event shall credit be allowed in excess of the fine or sentence actually imposed.

(1967, P.A. 549, S. 15; 1969, P.A. 735, S. 1; P.A. 75-355, S. 2, 3; P.A. 80-442, S. 5, 28.)

History: 1969 act replaced “prison or jail” with “correctional institution or community correctional center”, allowed credit for days in custody under mittimus if person conforms to institution rules and required commissioner's notification for entering credit on order; P.A. 75-355 raised equivalency of credit day from $3 to $10; P.A. 80-442 specified that provisions applicable to offenses committed before July 1, 1981.

Cited. 168 C. 389; 169 C. 247. “Jailtime” credit given only for time served by detainee prior to sentencing. Id., 540. In order for inmate to be entitled to presentence credit for time served pursuant to section, it must appear he was being confined under mittimus which resulted from offense for which sentence was imposed. 173 C. 312. Cited. 184 C. 434; 196 C. 309. Cannot be applied with Sec. 18-98 cumulatively to the same sentence. 201 C. 115. Cited. 202 C. 343; 215 C. 695.

Cited. 30 CA 190.

Inapplicable to life sentences. 30 CS 20.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1972–2024 · leading case: Delevieleuse v. Manson, 439 A.2d 1055 (Conn. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Delevieleuse v. Manson, 439 A.2d 1055 (Conn. 1981). · cites it 58× “Complaining that he had not received the full credit required by General Statutes § 18-97, [1] the *436 plaintiff applied for a writ of habeas corpus.”
Sutton v. Lopes, 513 A.2d 139 (Conn. 1986). · cites it 26× “The sole issue on these combined appeals is whether convicted prisoners are entitled to receive *116 credit under both General Statutes § 18-97 and General Statutes § 18-98 for the same presentence jail time and thus obtain an effective sentence reduction of twice the number of…”
Holmquist v. Manson, 362 A.2d 971 (Conn. 1975). · cites it 18× “The agreed issue presented in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, who was sentenced to life imprisonment, is entitled to credit for presentence *391 confinement, commonly referred to as "jail time," under the provisions of General Statutes §§ 18-97 and 18-98. In determining…”
James v. Comm'r of Corr., 170 A.3d 662 (Conn. 2017). · cites it 13× “An examination of the brief legislative history of both § 18-98d and its predecessors, General Statutes §§ 18-97 and 18-98, portrays a general legislative intent to credit prisoners for time served in presentence confinement.”
Payton v. Albert, 547 A.2d 1 (Conn. 1988). · cites it 8× “Although neither statute clearly addressed the issue, we concluded in both instances that such transfers of jail time credit were not permitted.”
Loisel v. Rowe, 660 A.2d 323 (Conn. 1995). · cites it 4× “The petitioner had spent fifty-six days in presentence custody under a mittimus containing one docket number, and the respondent, the commissioner of correction, had credited him with fifty-six days of credit pursuant to General Statutes § 18-97. 3 Believing that he was entitled…”
State v. Hurdle, 350 Conn. 770 (Conn. 2024). · cites it 8× “Hurdle We first consider the legislative history of § 18-98d, beginning with its predecessor provisions, General Stat- utes §§ 18-97 and 18-98. See James v. Commissioner of Correction, 327 Conn.”
Casey v. Comm'r of Corr., 577 A.2d 1051 (Conn. 1990). · cites it 7× “Lopes, supra, does not apply to the present cases, because that case involved calculation of sentence credits under General Statutes § 18-97 4 rather than § 18-98d.”
Johnson v. Manson, 493 A.2d 846 (Conn. 1985). · cites it 2× “That opinion stated that General Statutes §§ 18-97 and 18-98 do not apply to presentence confinement served by inmates confined in other states while contesting extradition to Connecticut.”
Sutton v. Lopes, 521 A.2d 147 (Conn. 1987). · cites it 6× “The principal issue before the habeas court, and now before this court, is what type of statutory sentence credit is appropriate for time spent in custody serving a sentence that was later vacated and declared void.”
Mancinone v. Warden, 294 A.2d 564 (Conn. 1972). · cites it 6× “” The DiLoreto appeal concerns the interpretation of General Statutes § 18-98 as it read prior to October 1, 1969, 3 and § 18-97 as it read at the same time. 4 *434 Also involved in both eases are three statutes in effect at the time concerning parolees: §§ 54-126, 5 54-127 6…”
Laden v. Warden, 363 A.2d 1063 (Conn. 1975). · cites it 4× “On the other hand, General Statutes §§ 18-97 and 18-98 provide “jail time” credit only for time served by the detainee prior to sentencing.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.