Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-98c (2026)

Good conduct credit for presentence confinement 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

In addition to the time credits provided for in sections 18-97 and 18-98, any person who has been denied bail or who has been unable to obtain bail and who subsequently is fined or sentenced to a correctional institution or a community correctional center shall receive a good conduct credit towards any portion of such fine as is not remitted or any portion of such sentence as to which execution is not suspended, such credit to be at the rate of ten days for each month of presentence confinement and such credits to be awarded only for prompt obedience to the rules of the correctional institution or community correctional center wherein the person is confined. The provisions of this section allowing credit at the rate of ten days for each month of presentence confinement shall apply to those periods of time spent in presentence confinement pursuant to sections 18-97 and 18-98, which occur after October 1, 1976, for an offense committed prior to July 1, 1981.

(P.A. 75-222; P.A. 76-358, S. 3; P.A. 80-442, S. 7, 28.)

History: P.A. 76-358 changed credit from 5 to 10 days per month of presentence confinement and added provision specifying applicability of 10-day credit rate; P.A. 80-442 stated that credit rate applies to offenses committed before July 1, 1981.

Cited. 196 C. 309.

Cited. 24 CA 612; 30 CA 190.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1985–1998 · leading case: Johnson v. Manson, 493 A.2d 846 (Conn. 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Johnson v. Manson, 493 A.2d 846 (Conn. 1985). · cites it 2× “” The trial court denied that portion of the petitioner’s claim that sought an additional credit of thirty-six days of statutory good time under General Statutes § 18-98c. That portion of the relief sought is not involved in *311 this appeal.”

Chong Chung v. Comm'r of Corr., 717 A.2d 111 (Conn. 1998). · cites it 4× “80-442, §§ 7, 28, and now codified as General Statutes § 18-98c. 9 Third, given this history, it would be incongruous to conclude that, as a result of P.”

Raucci v. Warden, 619 A.2d 886 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993). · cites it 6× “nce with General Statutes § 18-7a (a), on the maximum sentence of thirty years; (3) ninety-two days of presentence confinement credit, in accordance with General Statutes § 18-97, representing the petitioner’s time in confinement prior to imposition of the first sentence on…”

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.