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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

v.

SCOTT DAVID KEDDY, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0617 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR1996-006123

The Honorable John R. Doody, Judge Pro Tempore

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Scott David Keddy, Kingman

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.

FILED 6-5-2018
STATE v. KEDDY

Decision of the Court

2

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Scott David Keddy petitions this court for review 

from the denial of his request for relief by the superior court. We have 

considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review 

and deny relief.

¶2 Keddy originally pled guilty to two counts of attempted 

molestation of a child, class 3 felonies and dangerous crimes against 

children. He was sentenced to lifetime probation on both counts. After 

multiple probation revocation proceedings, he was eventually revoked on 

one count, sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment, and given 857 days of presentence incarceration credit. He was reinstated to lifetime probation on 

the remaining count, to commence upon release from prison.

¶3 In 2017, after his release from prison, Keddy once again faced 

a petition to revoke his probation on the remaining count. Keddy entered 

an admission to violating his probation, the superior court ordered his 

probation revoked, and he was sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment, with 

credit for 111 days of pre-sentence incarceration.

¶4 Keddy filed a Motion for Sentence Correction Presentence 

Incarceration Credit Issue, claiming he was entitled to an additional 855 

days, or a total of 966 days of pre-sentence incarceration credit.1 The 

superior court denied the motion, finding that the amount of credit he 

received at his sentencing was correct.2

¶5 Keddy reiterates his claim in his petition for review, but now 

claims he was entitled to a total of 783 days of credit, or 672 additional days 

of credit.3

 

1 Keddy's motion incorrectly added his own figures.

2 Keddy did not request relief under Rule 32, and the superior court 

did not construe his motion as a Rule 32 request for relief. However, since 

Keddy's motion under Rule 24.3 would have been untimely, while a request 

under Rule 32 would have been timely, and the superior court analyzed the 

merits of his claim, we construe this as a proceeding under Rule 32.

3 We note that none of the cases cited by Keddy in his petition for 

review support his position. State v. DePiano, 187 Ariz. 27 (1996) has been 
STATE v. KEDDY

Decision of the Court

3

¶6 The applicable pre-sentence report reflects that after he was 

released from prison, Keddy was incarcerated on the remaining count for 

81 days prior to his revocation and sentence. The superior court gave him 

an additional 30 days credit for its directive requiring him to serve 30 days 

jail on this count in a prior reinstatement.

¶7 Keddy already received credit for the additional days he 

claims on the count for which he was originally revoked and ordered to 

prison. Since he is not being sentenced to a concurrent prison term, his 

claim has no merit, and the court correctly credited him with only 111 days.

See State v. Chavez, 172 Ariz. 102, 104 (App. 1992) (holding that pre-sentence 

incarceration prior to placement on probation only applied to one of 

consecutive terms of prison); see also State v. Witt, 19 Ariz. App. 440, 441

(1973) (holding that crediting pre-sentence incarceration on a revocation of 

probation for time served prior to revocation not mandated); State v. 

McClure, 189 Ariz. 55, 57 (App. 1997) ("When consecutive sentences are 

imposed, a defendant is not entitled to presentence incarceration credit on 

more than one of those sentences, even if the defendant was in custody 

pursuant to all of the underlying charges prior to trial.").

¶8 We grant review and deny relief.

 

overruled. See State v. Davis, 206 Ariz. 377 (2003). Keddy did not present

the constitutional issues discussed in DePiano and Davis to the superior 

court, and we decline to consider them. See State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 

71 (App. 1988). Keddy also cites to State v. Snider, 172 Ariz. 163 (App. 1992) 

and State v. Salinas, 23 Ariz. App. 232 (1975), but neither case involved

consecutive sentences.