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

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-98d (2026)

Credit for presentence confinement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)(1)(A) Any person who is confined to a community correctional center or a correctional institution for an offense committed on or after July 1, 1981, and prior to October 1, 2021, under a mittimus or because such person is unable to obtain bail or is denied bail shall, if subsequently imprisoned, earn a reduction of such person's sentence equal to the number of days which such person spent in such facility from the time such person was placed in presentence confinement to the time such person began serving the term of imprisonment imposed; provided (i) each day of presentence confinement shall be counted only once for the purpose of reducing all sentences imposed after such presentence confinement; and (ii) the provisions of this section shall only apply to a person for whom the existence of a mittimus, an inability to obtain bail or the denial of bail is the sole reason for such person's presentence confinement, except that if a person is serving a term of imprisonment at the same time such person is in presentence confinement on another charge and the conviction for such imprisonment is reversed on appeal, such person shall be entitled, in any sentence subsequently imposed, to a reduction based on such presentence confinement in accordance with the provisions of this section. In the case of a fine, each day spent in such confinement prior to sentencing shall be credited against the sentence at a per diem rate equal to the average daily cost of incarceration as determined by the Commissioner of Correction.

(B) Any person who is confined to a community correctional center or a correctional institution for an offense committed on or after October 1, 2021, under a mittimus or because such person is unable to obtain bail or is denied bail shall, if subsequently imprisoned, earn a reduction of such person's sentence equal to the number of days which such person spent in such facility from the time such person was placed in presentence confinement to the time such person began serving the term of imprisonment imposed; provided (i) each day of presentence confinement shall be counted equally in reduction of any concurrent sentence imposed for any offense pending at the time such sentence was imposed; (ii) each day of presentence confinement shall be counted only once in reduction of any consecutive sentence so imposed; and (iii) the provisions of this section shall only apply to a person for whom the existence of a mittimus, an inability to obtain bail or the denial of bail is the sole reason for such person's presentence confinement, except that if a person is serving a term of imprisonment at the same time such person is in presentence confinement on another charge and the conviction for which such imprisonment was imposed is reversed on appeal, such person shall be entitled, in any sentence subsequently imposed, to a reduction based on such presentence confinement in accordance with the provisions of this section. In the case of a fine, each day spent in such confinement prior to sentencing shall be credited against the sentence at a per diem rate equal to the average daily cost of incarceration as determined by the Commissioner of Correction.

(2) (A) Any person convicted of any offense and sentenced on or after October 1, 2001, to a term of imprisonment who was confined to a police station or courthouse lockup in connection with such offense because such person was unable to obtain bail or was denied bail shall, if subsequently imprisoned, earn a reduction of such person's sentence in accordance with subdivision (1) of this subsection equal to the number of days which such person spent in such lockup, provided such person at the time of sentencing requests credit for such presentence confinement. Upon such request, the court shall indicate on the judgment mittimus the number of days such person spent in such presentence confinement.

(B) Any person convicted of any offense and sentenced prior to October 1, 2001, to a term of imprisonment, who was confined in a correctional facility for such offense on October 1, 2001, shall be presumed to have been confined to a police station or courthouse lockup in connection with such offense because such person was unable to obtain bail or was denied bail and shall, unless otherwise ordered by a court, earn a reduction of such person's sentence in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (1) of this subsection of one day.

(C) The provisions of this subdivision shall not be applied so as to negate the requirement that a person convicted of a first violation of subsection (a) of section 14-227a and sentenced pursuant to subparagraph (B)(i) of subdivision (1) of subsection (g) of said section serve a term of imprisonment of at least forty-eight consecutive hours.

(b) In addition to any reduction allowed under subsection (a) of this section, if such person obeys the rules of the facility such person may receive a good conduct reduction of any portion of a fine not remitted or sentence not suspended at the rate of ten times the average daily cost of incarceration as determined by the Commissioner of Correction or ten days, as the case may be, for each thirty days of presentence confinement; provided any day spent in presentence confinement by a person who has more than one information pending against such person may not be counted more than once in computing a good conduct reduction under this subsection.

(c) The Commissioner of Correction shall be responsible for ensuring that each person to whom the provisions of this section apply receives the correct reduction in such person's sentence; provided in no event shall credit be allowed under subsection (a) of this section in excess of the sentence actually imposed.

(P.A. 80-442, S. 2, 28; P.A. 81-472, S. 41, 159; P.A. 01-78; P.A. 02-18, S. 2; P.A. 04-234, S. 13; P.A. 06-119, S. 3; P.A. 16-193, S. 33; P.A. 21-102, S. 21.)

History: P.A. 81-472 made technical changes; P.A. 01-78 amended Subsec. (a) to designate existing provisions as Subdiv. (1), redesignate former Subdivs. (1) and (2) as Subparas. (A) and (B), respectively, and add new Subdiv. (2) re credit for presentence confinement in a police station or courthouse lockup and made technical changes throughout section; P.A. 02-18 amended Subsec. (a)(1) to increase from $10 to $50 the credit against a fine for each day spent in presentence confinement and amended Subsec. (b) to increase from $100 to $500 the good conduct reduction in an unremitted fine for each 30 days of presentence confinement; P.A. 04-234 amended Subsec. (a)(1) to replace the rate of $50 with “a per diem rate equal to the average daily cost of incarceration as determined by the Commissioner of Correction”, effective June 8, 2004; P.A. 06-119 amended Subsec. (b) to replace $500 with “ten times the average daily cost of incarceration as determined by the Commissioner of Correction” as the amount of the good conduct reduction of an unremitted fine that a person may receive for each 30 days of presentence confinement, effective July 1, 2006; P.A. 16-193 amended Subsec. (a)(2)(C) by substituting “subsection (g)” for “subsection (h)” in provision re sentencing pursuant to Sec. 14-227a; P.A. 21-102 amended Subsec. (a)(1) by making existing language Subsec. (a)(1)(A), adding “and prior to October 1, 2021”, redesignating existing Subsecs. (a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B) as Subsecs. (a)(1)(A)(i) and (a)(1)(A)(ii) and adding Subsec. (a)(1)(B) re a person confined on or after October 1, 2021.

Cited. 184 C. 434; 196 C. 309; 201 C. 115; 205 C. 27; 209 C. 23; 215 C. 695; 219 C. 269. Presentence credit not authorized for persons awaiting or contesting extradition; presentence credit not authorized when prisoner not in custody or control of commissioner. 259 C. 855. Regarding claim that incarceration in another state while contesting extradition made section applicable, court held that persons who are confined in another state pending extradition are not similarly situated to persons who are confined in this state pending trial. 266 C. 596. Section requires transfer of credits from earlier imposed sentence to later imposed sentence when both sentences merge into one effective sentence under one docket number; if person serving term of imprisonment exercises right to pursue double jeopardy claim on charge for which sentence may run concurrently, person shall be entitled, in any subsequently imposed sentence, to reduction based on such presentence confinement. 327 C. 24.

Cited. 30 CA 190; 36 CA 440; 39 CA 455; Id., 473; 45 CA 566. Presentence credit not authorized for persons awaiting or contesting extradition. 54 CA 11. Allocation of credit under section does not implicate fundamental right or burden a suspect class, and is rationally related to legitimate public purpose of ensuring that convicted offenders serve the full term of their sentences; respondent's allocation of pretrial confinement credit pursuant to section did not violate separation of powers doctrine; because legislature plays substantial role, in conjunction with the judiciary, in sentencing those convicted of criminal offenses, court could not conclude that statute, as applied by respondent, significantly interfered with judiciary's role in sentencing. 90 CA 460. Credits under section are only available to an individual committed to the custody of Commissioner of Correction and not to a person committed to any other authority, including a juvenile committed to Commissioner of Children and Families. 136 CA 373. The commissioner, rather than the sentencing court, is the proper authority to determine eligibility for presentence confinement credit and to apply such credit against a defendant's sentence after the sentence is imposed. 217 CA 453.

Subsec. (a):

Municipal police department is neither a community correctional center nor a correctional institution. 258 C. 394. When concurrent sentences are imposed on different dates, presentence confinement days accrued simultaneously on more than one docket are utilized fully on the date they are applied to first sentence; hence, they cannot be counted a second time to accelerate discharge date of any subsequent sentence without violating language of Subdiv. (1)(A). 271 C. 808. Section clearly requires that in order for petitioner to receive jail credit, he must request the credit from the sentencing court at the time of sentencing, and such timely request is thus a condition precedent to the court's ability to grant the credit. 294 C. 165.

Court reiterated holding that each day of presentence confinement, regardless of the number of informations under which such confinement accrues, should be counted only once and credited to only one day of sentenced confinement. 80 CA 574. Each day of presentence confinement, regardless of the number of informations under which such confinement accrues, should be counted once and credited to only one day of sentenced confinement. Id., 580. Petitioner cannot earn presentence confinement credit while serving sentence. 83 CA 77. Pretrial confinement credit shall be used only once. 94 CA 283. Recalculation of petitioner's presentence confinement credit in wake of Harris v. Commissioner of Correction did not violate petitioner's right to equal protection, constitute an ex post facto violation or violate the separation of powers doctrine. 104 CA 793.

Subsec. (b):

“One continuous term” language of Sec. 18-7 is applicable to presentence good time credit earned under Subsec. and presentence good time credits earned on one sentence may be credited toward a subsequent, controlling concurrent sentence. 254 C. 214.

Subsec. (c):

Commissioner of Correction is proper authority to ensure defendant receives all presentence confinement credit due. 218 CA 302.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 78 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Washington v. Comm'r of Corr., 950 A.2d 1220 (Conn. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Washington v. Comm'r of Corr., 950 A.2d 1220 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 65× “The central issue raised in this appeal is whether the interpretation of General Statutes § 18-98d, first announced in a trilogy of cases in 2004, can be applied retroactively to prisoners in custody as of the date of that decision without offending their constitutional or…”
Hammond v. Comm'r of Corr., 792 A.2d 774 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 57× “The principal issue presented by this certified appeal is whether the petitioner, Martin Hammond, who is serving a twenty-five year prison term for murder and kidnapping, 1 is entitled to credit toward *857 his sentence pursuant to General Statutes § 18-98d 2 for the four months…”
Harris v. Comm'r of Corr., 860 A.2d 715 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 45× “The principal issue presented by this appeal is whether the petitioner, Randy Harris, was *810 entitled by General Statutes § 18-98d 1 to have each of his two concurrent sentences, which were imposed on different dates, reduced by the same calendar days of presentence…”
James v. Comm'r of Corr., 170 A.3d 662 (Conn. 2017). · cites it 71× “I disagree with the majority that General Statutes § 18-98d is ambiguous. Section 18-98d(a)(1)(A) plainly and unambiguously provides that the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, shall count each day of presentence confinement " only once for the purpose of reducing all…”
Crawford v. Comm'r of Corr., 982 A.2d 620 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 19× “The petitioner also claims that the habeas court improperly determined that he was not entitled to one day of sentence credit under General Statutes § 18-98d (a) (2) (A). 2 Finally, he claims that the habeas court improperly *169 rejected his claim that he had been deprived of…”
State v. Hurdle, 350 Conn. 770 (Conn. 2024). · cites it 51× “’’ General Statutes § 18-98d (a) (1) (B). The legislative history of that provision indicates that it was enacted in response to this court’s decision in Harris.”
Rivera v. Comm'r of Corr., 756 A.2d 1264 (Conn. 2000). · cites it 20× “[The Appellate Court] agree [s] with the habeas court that the petitioner is not seeking additional presentence confinement credits, and that General Statutes § 18-98d 9 and the case of Payton v.”
Payton v. Albert, 547 A.2d 1 (Conn. 1988). · cites it 21× “Specifically, the petitioner claimed that he was entitled, under General Statutes §§ 18-98d and 53a-38 (b), 1 to a sentence reduction of *25 113 days for the time he had spent in presentence confinement (jail time) awaiting the disposition of his cases.”
Connelly v. Comm'r of Corr., 780 A.2d 903 (Conn. 2001). · cites it 16× “Finally, the petitioner asserted that the commissioner improperly had refused to grant him presentence confinement credit under General Statutes § 18-98d (a) 10 for the three days that he *402 was incarcerated at the Newington police department immediately following his arrest.”
Whitaker v. Comm'r of Corr., 878 A.2d 321 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 24× “The petitioner contends that the court improperly concluded that (1) the respondent properly construed and applied General Statutes § 18-98d and did not violate his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process, as well as the separation of powers doctrine, and (2)…”
Stuart v. Comm'r of Corr., 834 A.2d 52 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 18× “to 1993) § 18-98d 3 for the period of time that he was incarcerated in Pennsylvania in connection with the assault charge, unable to post bond due to indigency, while contesting extradition to this state.”
Oliphant v. Comm'r of Corr., 877 A.2d 761 (Conn. 2005). · cites it 9× “The petitioner contends that he would receive presentence confinement credit under General Statutes § 18-98d 13 if his *577 April convictions were overturned.”
Show all 78 citing cases →
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-98d(a)(1) — 4 cases
James v. Comm'r of Corr., 170 A.3d 662 (Conn. 2017). “I disagree with the majority that General Statutes § 18-98d is ambiguous. Section 18-98d(a)(1)(A) plainly and unambiguously provides that the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, shall count each day of presentence confinement " only once for the purpose of reducing all…”
Giuseppe Spina v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 470 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2006).
Lee v. Comm'r of Corr., 163 A.3d 702 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
Gonzalez v. Comm'r of Corr., 1 A.3d 170 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010).
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-98d(a)(1)(A) — 1 case
James v. Comm'r of Corr., 170 A.3d 662 (Conn. 2017). “I disagree with the majority that General Statutes § 18-98d is ambiguous. Section 18-98d(a)(1)(A) plainly and unambiguously provides that the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, shall count each day of presentence confinement " only once for the purpose of reducing all…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-98d(a)(1)(B) — 2 cases
James v. Comm'r of Corr., 170 A.3d 662 (Conn. 2017). “I disagree with the majority that General Statutes § 18-98d is ambiguous. Section 18-98d(a)(1)(A) plainly and unambiguously provides that the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, shall count each day of presentence confinement " only once for the purpose of reducing all…”
In re Pentland, 169 A.3d 851 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-98d(a)(2)(B) — 1 case
James v. Comm'r of Corr., 170 A.3d 662 (Conn. 2017). “I disagree with the majority that General Statutes § 18-98d is ambiguous. Section 18-98d(a)(1)(A) plainly and unambiguously provides that the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, shall count each day of presentence confinement " only once for the purpose of reducing all…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-98d(a)(l) — 1 case
Boyd v. Lantz, 487 F. Supp. 2d 3 (D. Conn. 2007).
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.