This proceeding was originated from the appeal of a man. The man, who is an inmate at one correctional facility, is challenging the computation of his jail time credit associated with his current sentence of imprisonment. The court then issued an order to show cause, and has received and reviewed the answer of the commissioner and the chief officer.
The court received and reviewed the affirmation submitted on behalf of the department of correction. The court also received and reviewed the man’s reply to the answering papers.
On 2006, the man was sentenced to a determinate term of two years, with two years’ post-release supervision, upon his conviction of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. He was then received into the custody as entitled to one hundred eleven days of jail time credit. Running the two year determinate term from that date, less one hundred eleven days of jail time credit, the officials determined the initial maximum expiration date of the man’s 2006 sentence to be on 2008.
On 2007, the man was conditionally released from the custody to post-release parole supervision from his drug crime conviction. Upon his release, the running of two year determinate term was legally interrupted with the one year and twenty-one days still owing to the maximum expiration date of such term held in abeyance.
Also, upon the man’s conditional release, the running of the two year period of post-release supervision initiated with the maximum expiration date of that period initially calculated as to the first month of 2009.
Later, the man was declared delinquent and the delinquency interrupted the running of the period of post-release supervision with one year, four months and twenty days still owing to the initial maximum expiration date of such period.
The man was then restored to post-release supervision certified by the state’s board of parole as entitled to eleven days of parole jail time credit. The parole jail time credit was also applied against the interrupted 2006 determinate term, reducing the time previously held in abeyance against such term from one year and twenty-one days to one year and ten days.
Sources revealed that the one year, four months and twenty days owing against the man’s two year period of post-release supervision re-commenced running upon his 2007 restoration to post-release supervision producing an adjusted post-release supervision.
On 2007, while the man was at liberty subject to post-release parole supervision, he was arrested in connection with new criminal charges and held in local custody until he was apparently released on his own recognizance.
Subsequently, the man remained at liberty subject to post-release supervision until September 2008 when he was apparently taken into custody. A final parole revocation hearing was then conducted and at the conclusion of it, the man’s post-release parole supervision was revoked with a modified delinquency date.
Based on records, the delinquency interrupted the running of the period of post-release supervision with two months and twenty-nine days still owing to the adjusted maximum expiration date of such period.
The man was returned to the custody, as a post-release supervision violator on 2009 and entitled to sixty-three days of parole jail time credit. The parole jail time credit was applied against the interrupted 2006 determinate term, further reducing the time previously held in abeyance against such term from one year and ten days to ten months and seven days.
The ten months and seven days still held in abeyance against the man’s 2006 determinate term re-commenced running and return to the custody. The man thus completed service of that determinate term. The two months and twenty-nine days still owing against the two year period of post-release supervision recommenced running, and the maximum expiration date thereof would have been reached on or about February 2011. Cocaine and marijuana were involved.
After the man had been returned to the custody as a post-release supervision violator and while he was still serving the 2006 determinate term, he was transferred into the custody of the city to await the disposition of his pending criminal charges.
On November 2009, the man was sentenced as a second drug felony offender, to a determinate term of two years, with one to two years’ post-release supervision, upon his conviction of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
The criminal act underlying such conviction had been committed. Even if the man’s 2009 determinate sentence, imposed upon him as a second felony drug offender, was mandated to run consecutively with respect to the undischarged terms of any previously imposed sentence notwithstanding the sentencing court’s failure to so specify, the man had already completed serving the 2 year 2006 determinate term prior to the imposition of his 2009 sentence.
Consequently, the maximum expiration date of the man’s two year 2009 determinate term is calculated simply by running such term, when it was imposed, to produce a maximum expiration date of November 2011. The time remaining against the two year 2006 period of post-release supervision as of the man’s 2009 sentencing date with approximately two months and twenty-one days, and legally merged with, and will be satisfied by discharge of the one year period of post-release supervision imposed in connection with his 2009 determinate term.
The man asserts that he is entitled to jail time credit against his 2009 determinate term for the time periods he spent in the custody of the city.
Based on records, the term of a determinate sentence imposed on a person shall be credited with and diminished by the amount of time the person spent in custody prior to the commencement of such sentence as a result of a charge of that culminated in the sentence. Moreover, the credit provided shall be calculated from the date custody under the charge commenced to the date the sentence begins and shall not include any time that is credited against the term of any previously imposed sentence or period of post-release supervision to which the person is subject.
The first period of time for which the man seeks jail time credit occurred after his 2007 restoration to the period of post-release supervision associated with his 2006 determinate sentence and before the 2008 delinquency date that interrupted the running of that period of post-release supervision. The court stated that the man is therefore not entitled to jail time credit for the time period in question since such time period was already credited against the previously-imposed 2006 period of post-release supervision.
The second time period for which the man seeks credit occurred after 2009, when the man was received back into the custody as a post-release supervision violator and, as alluded to previously, his 2006 determinate term, recommenced running. The man’s 2009 transfer from state to city custody to await a disposition of his pending criminal charges, moreover, did not interrupt the running of his 2006 determinate term or, later, his 2006 period of post-release supervision. The court stated that the man is therefore not entitled to jail time credit for the time period in question since it was already credited against the term of his previously-imposed 2006 determinate sentence and 2006 period of post-release supervision. Consequently, the court ordered to dismiss the petition.