Case Title: Rosalez v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 97-93

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1998-03-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
Rosalez v. State1998 WY 40955 P.2d 899Case Number: 97-93Decided: 03/27/1998Supreme Court of Wyoming

Mario 
A. ROSALEZ, Appellant (Defendant),

v.

The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee 
(Plaintiff).

 

Appeal from District Court, Natrona County, Dan 
Spangler, J.

 

Mario A. Rosalez, pro 
se.

William U. Hill, Attorney 
General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior 
Assistant Attorney General; Georgia L. Tibbetts, Senior Assistant Attorney 
General, for Appellee.

 

Before TAYLOR, C.J., and 
THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and LEHMAN, JJ.

 

THOMAS, Justice.

 

[¶1] The only question in 
this case is whether Mario Rosalez (Rosalez) is entitled to relief under WYO. R. 
CRIM. P. 35(a) from an illegal sentence because he was not given credit against 
his sentence for all time spent in confinement prior to the imposition of 
sentence. After his arrest and release on bond, Rosalez was arrested on a 
detainer from the State of Washington. That arrest interfered with his 
appearance before the county court, and his bond was revoked. A higher bond was 
set, and Rosalez was unable to post the higher amount. The detainer from the 
State of Washington was still in effect. The district court did not afford 
Rosalez credit for this time spent in confinement prior to the imposition of 
sentence, and Rosalez appeals from the denial of his motion seeking such credit. We hold that, under the circumstances 
reflected in the record, Rosalez was not entitled to the claimed credit. The 
Order entered in the district court denying sentence reduction is affirmed. 

 

[¶2] In the Brief of 
Appellant, filed by Rosalez on his own behalf, the issues that are asserted 
are:

 

1. 
Did the Judge err in denying Appellant[']s MOTION FOR CREDIT FOR ALL JAIL TIME, 
and MOTION TO RECONSIDER MOTION FOR CREDIT FOR ALL JAIL TIME AS A MOTION TO 
CORRECT AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE, as MOTION FOR SENTENCE 
REDUCTION[]?

 

2. 
Did the Judge err in failing to grant Appellant credit for Appellant[']s total 
jail time?

 

In the Brief of Appellee, 
filed by the State of Wyoming (State), the issue is said to 
be:

 

Did the district court properly deny appellant 
additional presentence confinement credit?

 

A Response to Brief of 
Appellee was filed by Rosalez, but it does not state any additional 
issues.

 

[¶3] By a complaint and 
affidavit, filed in Natrona County on March 13, 1993, Rosalez was charged with 
committing indecent liberties against two minor children. He was released on a 
personal recognizance bond in the amount of $3,000.00, but the County Court 
required him to post a cash bond of $2,000.00. After posting the initial bail, 
Rosalez apparently went to Sheridan where, on March 24, 1993, he was arrested on 
a warrant from the State of Washington. This arrest caused him to miss a 
scheduled appearance in the Natrona County Court, and the court then issued a 
bench warrant for his arrest and return to Natrona County. The warrant was 
executed on March 30, 1993.

 

[¶4] Rosalez' bond was not 
forfeited after his return to Natrona County, but a new bond was set in the 
amount of $15,000.00 cash or surety bond, which he was not able to post. The 
warrant from the State of Washington still was outstanding, and it would have 
prevented Rosalez' release from custody had he been able to post the new bond. 
On April 20, 1993, Rosalez entered a plea of guilty to one count of the Amended 
Information that had been filed, and on May 19, 1993, the district court 
sentenced him to a term of not less than two and one-half years nor more than 
six years in the state penitentiary. He was given credit against that sentence 
for three days previously served in the Natrona County Jail and six days served 
in the Sheridan County Jail. He was not given credit for any jail time after 
March 30, 1993.

 

[¶5] On February 28, 1997, 
Rosalez filed a Motion for Credit for All Jail Time, asserting that he was 
endeavoring to correct an illegal sentence. He sought credit for an additional 
fifty-one days of presentence confinement. The district court entered its Order 
denying Rosalez' motion on the same day. Rosalez appeals from that 
Order.

 

[¶6]Our decisions require 
that one who is convicted of a crime must be credited with time spent in 
presentence confinement, against both the minimum and maximum sentence, if the 
defendant was unable to post bond for the offense of which he was 
convicted.  Milladge v. State, 900 P.2d 1156, 1160 (Wyo. 1995); Eustice v. State, 871 P.2d 682, 684 (Wyo. 1994); 
Prejean v. State, 794 P.2d 877, 878 (Wyo. 1990); Renfro v. State, 785 P.2d 491, 
498 (Wyo. 1990); Harley v. State, 737 P.2d 750, 756 (Wyo. 1987). We also have 
held that credit for presentence confinement need not be awarded to one whose 
confinement would have continued regardless of the posting of the required bond 
for the offense of which he was convicted. Smith v. State, 932 P.2d 1281, 1282 
(Wyo. 1997); Wayt v. State, 912 P.2d 1106, 1110 (Wyo. 1996); Wilson v. State, 
896 P.2d 1327, 1328 (Wyo. 1995); Van Duser v. State, 796 P.2d 1322, 1325 (Wyo. 
1990); and Duffy v. State, 730 P.2d 754 (Wyo. 1986). In Jones v. State, 602 P.2d 378 (Wyo. 1979), we held that the presentence confinement was not due to 
indigency, but was required because of Jones' violation of the terms of his 
initial pretrial release. Stated another way, a defendant need not be granted 
credit for presentence confinement unless the confinement was solely due to his 
inability to post the bond set for the offense of which he was convicted. 
Wilson.

 

[¶7] In his Motion for 
Credit for All Jail Time, Rosalez alleged that he was arrested in Sheridan on a 
warrant from the State of Washington and held without bail. He also asserted 
that, because of the detainer from the State of Washington, his bail on the 
charge for which he was convicted was raised to an amount he could not meet. 
While these allegations are less than precise, they do make a clear record that 
Rosalez was not confined solely because of his inability to post the bond for 
the offense of which he was convicted. His case closely resembles Smith and 
Duffy in that regard. There was no error in the decision of the trial court to 
deny credit for presentence confinement after March 30, 
1993.

 

[¶8] The Order entered in 
the district court is affirmed.