Chandra Bozelko v. Leo Arnone et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

In this matter the Respondent has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment along with a Memorandum with 54 exhibits dated December 31, 2012.   The petitioner had filed an objection dated January 30, 2013.   The petitioner also filed her own Motion for Summary Judgment, date January 30, 2013, with a memorandum with an exhibit.

A hearing was held with regard to the above matter after notice on May 2, 2013, at New London.

The petitioner was connected to the same by video procedures.

At the hearing petitioner agreed that her objection and her separate Motion for Summary Judgment, having been based upon the same reasoning, should be considered together as an opposition to the respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Both parties presented argument with respect to their respective claims.   The court has had an opportunity to review the documentation filed, including a transcript of Judge Carroll's ruling of June 28, 2005.

Giving consideration to the same the court finds that respondent has established that in this matter the petitioner cannot demonstrate that she is entitled to the issuance of a mandamus.

Petitioner does not have a legal right to require the court to order the application of jail credits to a sentence upon which those credits are not properly placed.

The motion for summary judgment of the respondent is granted.   The motion for summary judgment of the petitioner is denied.

Robert C. Leuba, J.T.R.

Leuba, Robert C., J.T.R.