NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

JEFFREY SCOTT DOUGLAS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0409 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2017-002478-001

The Honorable Joan M. Sinclair, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joshua C. Smith

Counsel for Appellee

The Stavris Law Firm PLLC, Scottsdale

By Christopher Stavris

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 6-27-2019
STATE v. DOUGLAS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 Jeffrey Scott Douglas was convicted and sentenced for 

multiple offenses stemming from a series of burglaries. Without 

challenging any of the underlying convictions, he appeals the sentences 

imposed, arguing the superior court failed to properly award him 

presentence incarceration credit. For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 The relevant facts are undisputed. The State charged Douglas 

with one count of theft of means of transportation (Count 1), five counts of 

burglary in the third degree (Counts 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8), one count of burglary 

in the second degree (Count 4), one count of trafficking in stolen property 

(Count 7), and one count of theft of a credit card (Count 9). The State also 

alleged aggravating circumstances, prior felony convictions, and that 

Douglas committed the current offenses while on release. After a five-day 

trial, a jury convicted Douglas as charged and found he committed each 

offense for pecuniary gain and while on felony probation. At sentencing, 

Douglas admitted having multiple prior felony convictions and the 

superior court sentenced him as a category 3 offender, imposing an 

aggregate term of 15.75 years’ imprisonment with 335 days of presentence 

incarceration credit for each count. At the same time, the court also 

sentenced Douglas to a concurrent term of five years’ imprisonment with 

294 days of presentence incarceration credit on an unrelated case (CR 2017-

137433) and disposed of Douglas’ felony probation violation in CR 2008-

161445__revoking the probation, finding Douglas was held in custody for 

337 days on the matter, and imposing a one-year term of imprisonment to 

run consecutive to the sentences imposed in this case. Douglas timely 

appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶3 As his sole issue on appeal, Douglas contends the superior 

court failed to properly credit him for all time he spent incarcerated before 
STATE v. DOUGLAS

Decision of the Court

3

sentencing. Specifically, he argues that he should have received 337 days of 

presentence incarceration credit as calculated by the court for the unrelated 

probation violation case, notwithstanding that the sentence for that matter 

runs consecutive to the sentence imposed for the current offenses. 

¶4 Because Douglas did not object on this basis in the superior 

court, we review this claim only for fundamental, prejudicial error. State v. 

Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135, 140, ¶ 12 (2018). The failure to grant a defendant 

full credit for any presentence incarceration time constitutes fundamental 

error. State v. Cofield, 210 Ariz. 84, 86, ¶ 10 (App. 2005). 

¶5 “All time actually spent in custody pursuant to an offense 

until the prisoner is sentenced to imprisonment for such offense shall be 

credited against the term of imprisonment . . . .” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-712(B).

The qualifying phrase “pursuant to an offense” limits the credit a defendant 

may receive to the time served for the specific offense in question. State v. 

Bridgeforth, 156 Ariz. 58, 59 (App. 1986). Stated differently, a defendant may 

not receive credit for time spent serving another sentence. Id. Finally, when 

calculating presentence incarceration credit, a defendant is entitled to a full 

day of credit for any partial day in custody, State v. Carnegie, 174 Ariz. 452, 

454 (App. 1993), but no credit for the day of sentencing. State v. Lopez, 153 

Ariz. 285, 285 (1987). 

¶6 In this case, the record reflects that Douglas was arrested for 

the underlying offenses on July 17, 2017, and remained in custody until 

sentencing on June 11, 2018. Douglas was thus incarcerated for a total of 329 

days. Although he contends that the court deprived him of two days’ credit 

from the probation revocation matter when it imposed a consecutive oneyear sentence for that offense, Douglas received full credit for the time he 

spent in custody on the current offenses, and the probation revocation 

sentence is not properly before us on this appeal. Because the court fully 

credited him for the time served on the underlying offenses, Douglas has 

failed to demonstrate any fundamental, prejudicial error. 
STATE v. DOUGLAS

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶7 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Douglas’ convictions 

and sentences.