When it is the act of the department in applying presentence confinement credit, and not the sentencing proceeding itself, that is the subject of the petitioner's attack, the habeas court is the proper venue for the petitioner to raise his claims. State v. Carmona, 104 Conn. App. 828, 833, 936 A.2d 243 (2007), cert. denied, 286 Conn. 919, 946 A.2d 1249 (2008); see also State v. Torres, 9 Conn. App. 133, 136, 516 A.2d 1371 (1986) ("defendant's . . . claim, that he did not receive proper jail time credit, is a proper subject for habeas corpus proceedings rather than review by this court [on direct appeal]"). III

Therefore, the board's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal was reasonable because an appeal beyond the twenty-one day appeal period is "`too late' for review." Gumbs, supra, 9 Conn. App. 133. CONCLUSION

The board's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal was reasonable because an appeal beyond the twenty-one-day appeal period is "too late for review." Gumbs v. Administrator, supra, 9 Conn.App. 133. Accordingly, there is no basis for this court to conclude that the board acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or otherwise abused its discretion in affirming the appeal referee's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal for late filing.