- 763 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUE

Cite as 313 Neb. 763

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Celvin Ottoniel 

Castillo-Rodriguez, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed March 10, 2023. No. S-22-464.

1. Sentences: Appeal and Error. Whether a defendant is entitled to credit 

for time served and in what amount are questions of law, subject to 

appellate review independent of the lower court.

2. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, which an appellate court reviews independently of the 

lower court.

3. Sentences: Records. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-503 (Reissue 2021) requires a 

sentencing court to separately determine, state, and grant credit for time 

served, and the court has no discretion to grant more or less credit than 

is established by the record.

4. Sentences. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-503 (Reissue 2021) is intended to ensure 

that defendants receive all the credit against their jail sentence to which 

they are entitled—no less, and no more.

5. Sentences: Records. When a trial court grants a defendant more or 

less credit for time served than the defendant actually served, that portion of the pronouncement of sentence is erroneous and may be corrected to reflect the accurate amount of credit as verified objectively by 

the record.

6. Habeas Corpus: Words and Phrases. A writ of habeas corpus ad 

prosequendum is a common-law writ issued by a court, ordering the 

immediate removal of a prisoner from incarceration so that he or she can 

be brought to another jurisdiction to stand trial on charges for crimes 

committed within that jurisdiction.

7. Habeas Corpus. In Nebraska, writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum 

have been and continue to be a traditional way of securing the presence 

of a prisoner located in another jurisdiction.

8. Sentences: Records: Proof. Because jail credit is an absolute and 

objective number established by the record, the party advocating for 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

03/10/2023 09:06 AM CST
- 764 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUE

Cite as 313 Neb. 763

a specific jail credit calculation has the burden to provide the sentencing 

court with a record that establishes such calculation.

Appeal from the District Court for Hall County: Patrick M. 

Lee, Judge. Affirmed.

Mark Porto, of Wolf, McDermott, Depue, Sabott, Butz & 

Porto, L.L.C., for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Austin N. Relph 

for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Stacy, J.

This criminal appeal challenges the sentencing court’s jail 

credit calculation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-503 (Reissue 

2021). We find no error in the jail credit calculation on this 

record and affirm.

BACKGROUND

Facts

On October 25, 2021, Celvin Ottoniel Castillo-Rodriguez 

was charged in Hall County with four felony counts of third 

degree sexual assault of a child. He waived his right to a preliminary hearing in county court, and the case was bound over 

to district court, where an information charging the same four 

counts was filed. Eventually, Castillo-Rodriguez entered a no 

contest plea to an amended information charging two counts 

of child abuse, each a Class I misdemeanor. He was sentenced 

to 365 days in the county jail on each count, to be served 

consecutively. He was given 94 days of credit against the first 

jail term.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court properly calculated jail credit under § 47-503. Pursuant to that 

statute, “Credit against a jail term shall be given to any person 

sentenced to a city or county jail for time spent in jail as a 
- 765 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUE

Cite as 313 Neb. 763

result of the criminal charge for which the jail term is imposed 

or as a result of conduct upon which such charge is based.” 1 As 

relevant here, such credit “shall include, but not be limited to, 

time spent in jail: (a) Prior to trial; (b) During trial; [and] (c) 

Pending sentence.” 2

To understand the court’s jail credit calculation and the parties’ arguments, we provide additional background about the 

time Castillo-Rodriguez spent in the Hall County jail prior to 

trial and pending sentencing.

Detention in Hall 

County Jail

On October 22, 2021, Castillo-Rodriguez was arrested and 

lodged in the Hall County jail on the subject felony charges, 

which we will refer to as the “Hall County case.” A few days 

later, on October 25, he executed an appearance bond and was 

released from custody.

On October 26, 2021, Castillo-Rodriguez was taken into 

custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 

and he was detained by ICE in the Hall County jail. The parties 

generally agree that ICE had an agreement to house its detainees 

in the Hall County jail, but no such agreement is in our record. 

Nor does our record contain documentation of how, why, or 

precisely when ICE took custody of Castillo-Rodriguez. No 

party contends, however, that Castillo-Rodriguez’ ICE detention was related to the charges in the Hall County case. The 

parties agree that after Castillo-Rodriguez was taken into ICE 

custody on October 26, he was continuously detained in the 

Hall County jail until his sentencing on May 24, 2022.

After Castillo-Rodriguez was placed in ICE custody, the 

county court judge issued a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum addressed to ICE, and the writ was filed in the 

Hall County case. The writ was dated October 26, 2021, and 

it provided:

1 § 47-503.

2 Id.
- 766 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUE

Cite as 313 Neb. 763

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that you release CELVIN 

OTTONIEL CASTILLO-RODRIGUEZ . . . , now in 

the custody of [ICE], and being held at the Hall County 

Department of Corrections in Grand Island, Nebraska, to 

the custody of the Director of the Hall County Department 

of Corrections, or such officer as the Director deems 

appropriate, on or before the 9th day of December, 2021, 

at the hour of 9:30 AM and each day thereafter as may be 

necessary, for the purpose of attending proceedings in the 

above-referenced case.

The Defendant will be detained and held without release 

of any kind pending these proceedings. The Defendant 

will be held in the custody of the Hall County Department 

of Corrections until all matters in the County Court and 

District Court of Hall County relating to the above-named 

case number are resolved. Upon conclusion of the case, 

including serving any sentencing, said Defendant is to be 

returned to the custody from which he came as soon as 

practicable under safe and secure conduct in accordance 

with law.

As discussed in more detail later, a writ of habeas corpus ad 

prosequendum is a common-law writ issued by a court to order 

the immediate removal of a prisoner from incarceration so that 

he or she can be brought to another jurisdiction to stand trial 

on charges for crimes committed within that jurisdiction. 3 The 

writ is a traditional way to secure the presence of a prisoner 

held in another jurisdiction. 4

On December 30, 2021, Castillo-Rodriguez filed a motion 

to revoke his bond in the Hall County case “[f]or the reason that the Defendant [has] an Immigration hold, [and] the 

Defendant desire[s] to accumulate time serve[d].” It does 

not appear from our record that the county court ruled on 

this motion before the case was bound over to district court. 

3 See State v. Williams, 253 Neb. 619, 573 N.W.2d 106 (1997).

4 Id.
- 767 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUE

Cite as 313 Neb. 763

However, at his plea hearing in district court on February 

24, 2022, Castillo-Rodriguez’ counsel informed the court he 

wanted “to make sure that . . . bond is revoked, Your Honor. . 

. . I want to make sure he’s getting credit for this time because 

he’s in ICE custody.” The district court formally revoked the 

appearance bond in the Hall County case that same day and set 

the matter for sentencing on April 6, 2022.

On March 17, 2022, the district court judge issued a second 

writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum addressed to ICE. 

Like the first writ issued by the county court, the second 

writ referenced the case number for Castillo-Rodriguez’ Hall 

County case, and it was filed in that case. The second writ 

contained identical language to the first, except the second 

writ ordered Castillo-Rodriguez to be released to Hall County 

jail officials “on or before the 6th day of April, 2022, at the 

hour of 1:30 P.M. and each day thereafter as may be necessary, for the purpose of attending proceedings in the abovereferenced case.”

Sentencing

For reasons which are not clear from our record, the sentencing hearing was continued from April 6 to May 24, 2022. 

During the sentencing hearing on May 24, defense counsel 

took issue with the jail credit calculation contained in the presentence investigation report and requested additional credit 

for time served. The presentence investigation report identified two time periods during which Castillo-Rodriguez was in 

jail on the Hall County case. The first was from his arrest on 

October 22, 2021, until he bonded out on October 25, and the 

second was from the date his bond was revoked on February 

24, 2022, until the date of sentencing. The presentence investigation report indicated that between these two time periods 

Castillo-Rodriguez was in “ICE custody.”

When the court asked the State for its position on the request 

for additional jail credit, the prosecutor replied:

I didn’t do the math. I believe the start date is correct as [defense counsel] indicated. I think he was in 
- 768 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUE

Cite as 313 Neb. 763

custody until maybe [October] 25th as documented in the 

presentence. Then I think he posted the bond, and then he 

was transferred into ICE custody from that point forward. 

I don’t know if there was a revocation of bond filed by 

the defense in this case, but it’s just my understanding 

that he’s been in custody that entire time.

After confirming that the court file showed bond had been 

revoked on February 24, 2022, the court announced its jail 

credit determination on the record. The court found CastilloRodriguez was entitled to a total of 94 days of jail credit, calculated as follows:

• 4 days of credit based on being in Hall County jail from 

October 22, 2021 (the date he was arrested), to October 25 (the 

date he bonded out), and

• 90 days of credit based on being in Hall County jail from 

February 24, 2022 (the date his bond was revoked), to May 24 

(the date he was sentenced).

Defense counsel responded that this calculation was “technically right,” but he asked the court to consider awarding jail 

credit for the period before the bond was revoked. He also 

asked the court to consider a sentence of probation, and he 

provided the court with additional information on the status of 

federal immigration proceedings against Castillo-Rodriguez, 

explaining:

He is eligible for a term of probation. He does have — 

he has been subjected to a removal order, but that is on 

appeal and that appeal is to be heard later today actually, 

so that was the impetus for us to ask the Court to get us 

in a little bit early so we can have resolution one way or 

the other to get to his immigration attorney so that Court 

can be advised of all of the circumstances. There’s a 

possibility, given the specific convictions, that [CastilloRodriguez’] removal order could be removed and he 

could remain in the country.

The court found Castillo-Rodriguez was not an appropriate candidate for probation and imposed consecutive 1-year 
- 769 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUE

Cite as 313 Neb. 763

jail sentences with 94 days of jail credit on the first jail 

term. 5 Castillo-Rodriguez was then remanded to the custody 

of the “Hall County Department of Corrections” to serve his 

sentence.

After sentencing, Castillo-Rodriguez moved for an order 

nunc pro tunc requesting additional jail credit. No evidence 

was adduced at the hearing on this motion, but defense counsel 

relied on the language of § 47-503, as well as the language 

of the writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, to argue that 

Castillo-Rodriguez was in jail “as a result of the criminal 

charge” 6 in the Hall County case from the date of his arrest 

through the date of his sentencing. Specifically, defense counsel argued:

[The writ issued October 26, 2021,] says that the 

Defendant will be detained and held without release of 

any kind pending these proceedings. He will be held in 

the custody of the Hall County Department of Corrections 

until all matters in the County Court and District Court 

of Hall County relating to the above-named case number 

are resolved.

I think it’s pretty clear under the language of the writ 

that Judge Wetzel ordered . . . that regardless of whether 

[Castillo-Rodriguez] posted bond or not, the bottom line 

was that he was not going to be released from jail until 

all matters related to this case were resolved, and so that 

would be, quote, end quote, time spent in jail as a result 

of the criminal charge for which the jail term is imposed, 

and so I think by all rights, [Castillo-Rodriguez] should 

have received credit from October 26th of 2021 when 

Judge Wetzel issued that [writ] through the date of sentencing on May 2[4]th.

5 See State v. Galvan, 305 Neb. 513, 941 N.W.2d 183 (2020) (holding jail 

credit applies only once where defendant has multiple charges or cases 

pending simultaneously), modified on denial of rehearing 306 Neb. 498, 

945 N.W.2d 888.

6 § 47-503.
- 770 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUE

Cite as 313 Neb. 763

The court asked the prosecutor whether he agreed with 

defense counsel’s reading of the writ, and the prosecutor 

replied, “I guess I am not disputing the language of the writ. I 

guess I would say that controls the Court.” The prosecutor also 

elaborated on why the writ was issued. He explained that after 

Castillo-Rodriguez posted bond on October 25, 2021, he was 

released from State custody. So, when he was subsequently 

taken into ICE custody, the State used the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to “tak[e] physical control over [him] so 

that immigration doesn’t deport [him] from the United States 

so that we can have him to finish the prosecution.”

In an order entered June 22, 2022, the district court overruled 

the motion nunc pro tunc, reasoning that Castillo-Rodriguez 

was not seeking to correct a clerical error relating to jail credit, 

but instead was seeking to modify the sentencing order as it 

regarded the jail credit determination. 7 The court concluded 

it was “without jurisdiction to modify its final order in the 

manner requested by” Castillo-Rodriguez.

Castillo-Rodriguez filed a notice of appeal within 30 days 

of the sentencing order. We moved the appeal to our docket on 

our own motion.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The sole assignment of error is that the district court erred 

in “failing to award Castillo-Rodriguez 215 days[’] credit for 

time served.”

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1,2] Whether a defendant is entitled to credit for time 

served and in what amount are questions of law, subject to 

appellate review independent of the lower court. 8 Similarly, 

7 See In re Interest of Luz P. et al., 295 Neb. 814, 891 N.W.2d 651 (2017) 

(purpose of nunc pro tunc is to correct clerical or formal errors in order to 

make record correctly reflect judgment rendered by court).

8 State v. Wines, 308 Neb. 468, 954 N.W.2d 893 (2021).
- 771 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUE

Cite as 313 Neb. 763

statutory interpretation presents a question of law, which an 

appellate court reviews independently of the lower court. 9

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Castillo-Rodriguez argues he was entitled to 215 

days of jail credit under § 47-503, while the State contends the 

trial court correctly determined he was entitled to 94 days of 

jail credit.

In Nebraska, the calculation and application of credit for 

time served is controlled by statute. 10 Different statutes govern 

depending on whether the defendant is sentenced to jail or 

prison. 11 Section 47-503 governs jail credit when the defend

ant is sentenced to a term in county jail and provides in relevant part:

(1) Credit against a jail term shall be given to any person sentenced to a city or county jail for time spent in jail 

as a result of the criminal charge for which the jail term is 

imposed or as a result of conduct upon which such charge 

is based. Such credit shall include, but not be limited to, 

time spent in jail:

(a) Prior to trial;

(b) During trial;

(c) Pending sentence;

. . . .

(2) Credit to any person sentenced to a city or county 

jail who is eligible for credit pursuant to subsection (1) of 

this section shall be set forth as part of the sentence at the 

time such sentence is imposed.

[3-5] Section 47-503 requires a sentencing court to separately determine, state, and grant credit for time served, 

and the court has no discretion to grant more or less credit 

9 Id.

10 State v. Harms, 304 Neb. 441, 934 N.W.2d 850 (2019).

11 Id.
- 772 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUE

Cite as 313 Neb. 763

than is established by the record. 12 Section 47-503 is intended 

to ensure that defendants receive all the credit against their jail 

sentence to which they are entitled—no less, and no more. 13

When a trial court grants a defendant more or less credit for 

time served than the defendant actually served, that portion 

of the pronouncement of sentence is erroneous and may be 

corrected to reflect the accurate amount of credit as verified 

objectively by the record. 14

Here, the district court relied on information contained in 

the presentence investigation report, as well as information 

in the court record, to determine that Castillo-Rodriguez was 

in jail as a result of the criminal charges in the Hall County 

case for a total of 94 days. After independently reviewing 

the record, we agree it establishes entitlement to 94 days of 

jail credit.

The record shows that Castillo-Rodriguez was in the Hall 

County jail from his arrest on October 22, 2021, until he 

bonded out on October 25—a period of 4 days. The record 

further establishes that Castillo-Rodriguez was in the Hall 

County jail under ICE custody beginning on October 26, 

and he remained there until he was sentenced. Finally, the 

record establishes that on February 24, 2022, the district court 

revoked Castillo-Rodriguez’ bond in the Hall County case. 

And the State does not dispute that once his bond was revoked, 

Castillo-Rodriguez was in the Hall County jail as a result of the 

Hall County case. The record therefore establishes both periods 

of jail credit expressly found by the district court, for a total 

jail credit of 94 days.

But Castillo-Rodriguez relies on the writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to argue he was also in jail as a result 

of the Hall County case from the date the first writ was 

issued through the date of his sentencing. In other words, 

12 See State v. Clark, 278 Neb. 557, 772 N.W.2d 559 (2009).

13 Galvan, supra note 5.

14 Id.
- 773 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUE

Cite as 313 Neb. 763

Castillo-Rodriguez argues the district court was wrong to conclude that from October 26, 2021, to February 24, 2022, he 

was in the Hall County jail as a result of ICE proceedings, not 

as a result of the Hall County case. And Castillo-Rodriguez 

argues that if this additional time period had been considered, 

he would have been entitled to jail credit of 215 days, not 94.

To address his argument, we first review the general nature 

of writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. We then examine 

the record to consider what, if anything, it established about 

the writs issued in this case.

Writs of Habeas Corpus 

ad Prosequendum

[6,7] In State v. Williams,

 15 we summarized the nature of a 

writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, explaining:

A writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is a commonlaw writ issued by a court, ordering the immediate 

removal of a prisoner from incarceration so that he can 

be brought to another jurisdiction to stand trial on charges 

for crimes committed within that jurisdiction. See Carbo 

v. United States, 364 U.S. 611, 81 S. Ct. 338, 5 L. Ed. 2d 

329 (1961); 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus § 2 (1968) 

(citing State v. Heisler, 95 Ariz. 353, 390 P.2d 846 

(1964)). In Nebraska, writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum have been and continue to be a traditional way 

of securing the presence of a prisoner located in another 

jurisdiction. See Hawk v. State, 151 Neb. 717, 39 N.W.2d 

561 (1949), cert. denied 339 U.S. 923, 70 S. Ct. 612, 94 

L. Ed. 1346 (1950). Federal prisons, such as the prison 

in Leavenworth, Kansas, are authorized to “consider a 

request made on behalf of a state or local court that an 

inmate be transferred to the physical custody of state or 

local agents pursuant to state writ of habeas corpus ad 

prosequendum . . . .” 28 C.F.R. § 527.30 (1997).

15 Williams, supra note 3, 253 Neb. at 626-27, 573 N.W.2d at 111-12.
- 774 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUE

Cite as 313 Neb. 763

Williams also explained that a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is not synonymous with a detainer agreement.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also addressed writs of 

habeas corpus ad prosequendum. A century ago, in Ponzi v. 

Fessenden,

 16 the Court recognized that a prisoner in federal 

custody may be transported to a state court to face pending 

charges. The Court explained:

We live in the jurisdiction of two sovereignties, each 

having its own system of courts to declare and enforce 

its laws in common territory. It would be impossible for 

such courts to fulfill their respective functions without 

embarrassing conflict unless rules were adopted by them 

to avoid it. . . . The situation requires, therefore, not only 

definite rules fixing the powers of the courts in cases of 

jurisdiction over the same persons and things in actual litigation, but also a spirit of reciprocal comity and mutual 

assistance to promote due and orderly procedure. 17

Ponzi recognized the “chief rule which preserves our two 

systems of courts from actual conflict of jurisdiction is that 

the court which first takes the subject-matter of the litigation into its control, whether this be person or property, must 

be permitted to exhaust its remedy.” 18 The Court in Ponzi

described this as a “‘principle of comity’” and observed that 

“‘when one [sovereign] takes into its jurisdiction a specific 

thing, that res is as much withdrawn from the judicial power 

of the other, as if it had been carried physically into a different territorial sovereignty.’” 19 But the Court in Ponzi also 

recognized that nothing prevents a jurisdiction from practicing 

“the comity which the harmonious and effective operation of 

16 Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 42 S. Ct. 309, 66 L. Ed. 607 (1922).

17 Id., 258 U.S. at 259.

18 Id., 258 U.S. at 260.

19 Id., 258 U.S. at 260, 261, quoting Covell v. Heyman, 111 U.S. 176, 4 S. Ct. 

355, 28 L. Ed. 390 (1884).
- 775 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUE

Cite as 313 Neb. 763

both systems of courts requires,” 20 and thus, one sovereign having “custody and jurisdiction” 21 of a prisoner may “consent” 22

to the transfer of the prisoner to another sovereign to be 

tried, only insisting “on his being kept safely from escape or 

from danger.” 23

Here, the parties disagree about the legal impact the writs 

of habeas corpus ad prosequendum had on Castillo-Rodriguez’ 

entitlement to jail credit under § 47-503. Castillo-Rodriguez 

directs us to the broad language used in these writs, and he 

argues it resulted in transferring his custody from ICE to Hall 

County jail officials for the entire duration of the Hall County 

case. The State disagrees and cites to an Indiana case 24 to argue 

the “writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum did not change 

that [Castillo-Rodriguez] was in ICE custody rather than the 

custody of the State.” 25

This court has not yet addressed the legal effect, if any, a 

writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum has on a defendant’s 

entitlement to jail credit under § 47-503. But this case does 

not afford us a meaningful opportunity to explore that question 

because, as we explain next, nothing in this record established 

that ICE complied with either writ.

No Evidence of Compliance 

With Writs

As we recognized in Williams, federal regulations govern 

the procedure to be followed by federal authorities in responding to writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. 26 Under 

20 Ponzi, supra note 16, 258 U.S. at 263.

21 Id., 258 U.S. at 265.

22 Id., 258 U.S. at 266.

23 Id.

24 See Alvarez v. State, 147 N.E.3d 374 (Ind. App. 2020).

25 Brief for appellee at 8.

26 See Williams, supra note 3. See, also, 28 C.F.R. §§ 527.30 and 527.31 

(2021).
- 776 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUE

Cite as 313 Neb. 763

those regulations, the “[w]arden of the institution in which 

the inmate is confined” is authorized to approve a transfer 

of custody only when certain requirements are met. 27 Here, 

Castillo-Rodriguez was confined in the Hall County jail, and 

under Nebraska law, the sheriff is in charge of the county jail 

and all persons confined therein. 28

But nothing in the record established that ICE officials or 

the Hall County sheriff ever received, approved, accepted, 

or complied with the writs issued here. During oral argument 

before this court, counsel for Castillo-Rodriguez acknowledged 

there is nothing in the record establishing such facts, but he 

argued it was the State’s burden to make such a record.

Our cases hold that a sentencing court has no discretion to 

grant more or less jail credit than is established by the record, 29

but we have not previously addressed who has the burden to 

make that record. In cases like this one, where a presentence 

investigation report was ordered and prepared, that report 

typically identifies the number of days the defendant spent 

in jail as a result of the charges for which he or she is being 

sentenced, as it is a matter relevant to sentencing. 30 If the State 

or the defendant wants to object to or supplement the information in the presentence investigation report, either party has an 

opportunity to do so during the sentencing hearing. 31

Here, during the sentencing hearing, defense counsel took 

issue with the jail credit information in the presentence investigation report and argued Castillo-Rodriguez was entitled 

27 28 C.F.R. § 527.31(c).

28 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-105 (Reissue 2021).

29 Clark, supra note 12.

30 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2261 (Cum. Supp. 2022) (presentence 

investigation report shall include circumstances of crime and offender’s 

history of delinquency or criminality, physical and mental condition, 

family situation and background, economic status, education, occupation, 

personal habits, and any other relevant matters).

31 See id. (court may allow fair opportunity for offender to provide additional 

information for court’s consideration).
- 777 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUE

Cite as 313 Neb. 763

to additional credit. The State took the position that the jail 

credit information in the report was correct. Neither party 

adduced evidence to support their position.

[8] We are aware that presentence investigation reports are 

not prepared in every criminal case and that sometimes such 

reports either fail to address jail credit or express uncertainty 

as to the correct amount of jail credit. But since jail credit is 

“an absolute and objective number that is established by the 

record,” 32 and since no statute mandates who is responsible for 

making that record, we think it is reasonable to require that 

the party advocating for a specific jail credit calculation has 

the burden to provide the sentencing court with a record that 

establishes such calculation. 33

Here, no evidence bearing on jail credit was adduced beyond 

the information contained in the presentence investigation 

report and otherwise appearing in the court record. The court 

record showed that writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum 

were issued and filed, but it did not establish that ICE officials 

or the Hall County sheriff ever authorized or agreed to a transfer of custody pursuant to the writs. Indeed, statements made 

by defense counsel during sentencing indicate that CastilloRodriguez’ federal immigration case continued to proceed during the pendency of the Hall County case.

In some cases, it may be reasonable to infer that a transfer 

of custody from one sovereign to another was approved or 

authorized in response to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum because the defendant was physically transported 

to a different jurisdiction or detention facility. But no such 

inference is appropriate here, because Castillo-Rodriguez was 

detained in the Hall County jail both before and after the 

writs were issued. The jail logs would likely have shown 

whether, and if so when, custody of Castillo-Rodriguez was 

32 See Clark, supra note 12, 278 Neb. at 562, 772 N.W.2d at 563.

33 Cf. People v. Fransua, 457 P.3d 64 (Colo. App. 2016) (defendant claiming 

entitlement to credit for time served bears burden of proof on issue).
- 778 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUE

Cite as 313 Neb. 763

transferred from ICE to Hall County jail officials pursuant to 

the writs, but no such evidence was adduced.

The mere issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum does not establish compliance with the writ by the sovereign having custody. And since our record contains nothing 

to objectively establish compliance with the writs issued here, 

an opinion addressing the legal impact of those writs would be 

merely advisory. It is generally not the function of appellate 

courts to render advisory opinions, 34 so the impact, if any, that 

a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum has on entitlement to 

jail credit under § 47-503 is a matter we leave for another day 

and a different record.

On this record, we find no error in the district court’s determination that Castillo-Rodriguez was entitled to 94 days of 

jail credit.

CONCLUSION

The amount of jail credit to which a defendant is entitled 

under § 47-503 presents a question of law to be determined 

from the record presented to the district court. 35 On this record, 

the district court did not err in determining that CastilloRodriguez was entitled to 94 days of jail credit. We affirm the 

judgment and sentences of the district court.

Affirmed.

34 See, State v. Molina, 271 Neb. 488, 713 N.W.2d 412 (2006); State v. Rust, 

223 Neb. 150, 388 N.W.2d 483 (1986) 

35 See Clark, supra note 12.