Case Title: State v. De Passquallo

Citation: 140 Ariz. 228, 681 P.2d 380

Docket Number: 6095-PR

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1984-04-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
140 Ariz. 228 (1984) 681 P.2d 380 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Michael C. DE PASSQUALLO, a/k/a Michael Cary Bennefeld, Appellant. No. 6095-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc. April 23, 1984. Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by William J. Schafer, III and Crane McClennen, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. *229 Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender by Terry J. Adams, Phoenix, for appellant. HAYS, Justice. We adopt the statement of facts set forth in the court of appeals opinion, 140 Ariz. 235, 681 P.2d 387 (1983), as follows. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. 6 § 5(3) and 17 A.R.S. Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 31.19. We address only one issue, as we agree with the results the court of appeals reached on the other issues. On January 26, 1982, petitioner was taken into custody by Arizona officials and returned to Arizona to stand trial on the charges to which he ultimately pleaded guilty. From January 26, 1982 to June 28, 1982, petitioner was in custody for purposes of A.R.S. § 13-709(B). It is true that while in the Maricopa County Jail he was receiving credit against his federal sentence, but we find this to be irrelevant. Petitioner was in jail in Arizona to stand trial for the crimes he committed in Arizona, and is entitled to credit against his Arizona sentence for this presentence custody. The trial court applied the credit for petitioner's presentence custody against only one of petitioner's three concurrent sentences. The court of appeals affirmed that ruling. The law on this issue has recently changed and we credit each of petitioner's sentences with 153 days (January 26 to June 28, 1982) see State v. Cruz-Mata, 138 Ariz. 370, 373, 674 P.2d 1368, 1372-74 (1983). The opinion of the court of appeals is approved in part and vacated in part. Petitioner's *230 convictions are affirmed and his sentences, as modified, are affirmed. HOLOHAN, C.J., GORDON, V.C.J., and FELDMAN, J., concur. CAMERON, Justice, dissenting. I regret that I must disagree with the application of credit to each of petitioner's sentences for the reasons given in my dissent in State v. Cruz-Mata, 138 Ariz. 370, 674 P.2d 1368 (1983).