KENNETH L. SHLUGER, JUDGE.
The defendant has filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's decision, Shluger, J. denying his motion for a revised judgment mittimus dated September 17, 2007. A review of the record reveals that on July 11, 2006 the defendant entered guilty pleas in two files and the sentence was imposed as follows:
CR05-0231814: 10 years incarceration, execution suspended after five years, followed by four years of probation; and CR06-0232599: 5 years incarceration, concurrent to the sentence in docket number CR05-0231814 above
A review of the sentencing transcript reveals that defense counsel stated "Mr. Chaparro has been incarcerated since December 5 or 12th, I believe it is. I would just like to make sure that he gets credit on all files for that period of incarceration." The court responded "all right, I can't do the computation here, sir, but I will have the mittimus reflect that you are given all appropriate jail credit as computed by the Department of Corrections." The Assistant State's Attorney said nothing.
The defendant complains in this motion that his total effective sentence will be five years plus 50 days when his expectation was a sentence of five years only. The defendant argues that "there was an agreement with the state that he would serve a total of five years incarceration from the date he first entered DOC custody on 12/5/05" (motion for reconsideration paragraph 9).
The defendant argues that "defense counsel's comments during the plea/sentencing and the state's failure to voice any objection, reflects the agreement that defendant is to serve five years incarceration from CT Page 5224 the date he first entered DOC custody on 12/5/05" (motion for reconsideration paragraph 3).
The court is hard-pressed to conclude that there was an agreement between defense counsel and the Assistant State's Attorney based on the "comments" of defense counsel and the "silence" of the Assistant State's Attorney.
The defendant is correct that a convicted defendant should raise a claim under Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) in the sentencing court if at all possible. See, Orcutt v. Commissioner of Correction, 284 Conn. 724, 738-39 (2007).
On the merits however the defendant's claim must fail. The record reveals that the State made no express promise to the defendant. The defendant's argument rests on the notion that the State somehow implicitly made an agreement with the defendant as to the actual computation of his sentence by its silence. Based on these circumstances, the court finds as a factual matter that there was no implied promise by the State and no agreement between the parties on this issue. See Martinez v. Commissioner of Correction, 105 Conn.App. 65 (2007).
CT Page 5225