Aquil Kamal v. Warden (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

THE COURT:  Okay. Mr. Kamal, I'm going to deny your petition.   I'm going to try to explain this to you so you can understand it.

I have no doubt whatsoever that this sentence is calculated correctly.   I'm-I can see where you're getting confused, and it's obvious to me that you are confused;  but there are some rules that have to be followed in connection with sentence computation.

First of all-

THE PETITIONER:  Policies;  yeah.

THE COURT:  And believe me, I understand that every single day you spend in jail is an important day to you, and I don't mean to minimize this in any way, shape, or form.

THE PETITIONER:  Yes, sir.

THE COURT:  The cardinal rule that has to be followed is a day of confinement can be counted one time.

Now, you have 258 days that you spent in pretrial confinement.   That is, you were awaiting trial and sentencing.   You were sentenced on August 17th of 2004 to a sentence that was nine years to serve.   If one adds nine years to August 17, 2004, then the expiration of that sentence would be August 16th of 2013.   That's nine years from the date of your sentencing.

It is, however, nine years plus 258 days from the date that you entered incarceration.   In order to make sure that you don't serve more time than what the Court sentenced you to, your nine-year sentence is therefore reduced, and you receive credit for the 258 days spent in pretrial confinement.

In essence, while you were in pretrial confinement that 258 days, you, in effect, began serving your nine-year sentence.   When one subtracts 258 days from August 16, 2013, you get a maximum release date of December 1st of 2012.

Now, that also would be exactly nine years after you first entered incarceration.   So the total effectiveness is you will not spend-assuming no further crimes are committed, you will not spend more than nine years in jail on this offense for which you were convicted.

So I do find that the Department of Correction has correctly calculated the sentence credit in your case.   I'm sorry that you don't understand it.   I wish you did because I don't like the idea that you feel you're being cheated;  but from what I can see, sir, I don't see that.   But you are getting the appropriate credit, as you should be getting.   So I have to deny your petition.

Stanley T. Fuger, Jr., Superior Court Judge

Fuger, S.T., J.