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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CARLOS IVAN MENDIVIL, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0126 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2018-129998-001

The Honorable Kathleen H. Mead, Judge

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Andrew Stuart Reilly

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Legal Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Cynthia Dawn Beck

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 10-29-2020
STATE v. MENDIVIL

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s Decision, in which Presiding 

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

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1 Carlos Ivan Mendivil appeals the sentence imposed following 

his conviction for possession of narcotic drugs for sale. For the following

reasons, we modify Mendivil’s sentence for that conviction.

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Mendivil challenges only the amount of pre-incarceration 

credit he received concerning his sentence. Therefore, we address only the 

facts relevant to his sentencing. Mendivil was arrested on June 15, 2018,

pursuant to a traffic warrant. Police searched Mendivil’s bag and 

discovered three bags of white powder, a scale, and plastic baggies.

Mendivil was booked into jail on June 16, 2018, and was released the same 

day. Grand jurors indicted Mendivil on three counts: possession of narcotic 

drugs for sale (“Count One”), possession of drug paraphernalia (“Count 

Two”), and resisting arrest (“Count Three”). On December 9, 2019, jurors 

convicted Mendivil on Counts One and Two and acquitted him on Count 

Three. Mendivil was taken into custody on December 9, 2019, and held in 

custody until sentencing on February 27, 2020.

¶3 On Count One, the court sentenced Mendivil to a less than the 

minimum term of 3.25 years’ imprisonment, with 80 days’ presentence 

incarceration credit. On Count Two, the court suspended the imposition of 

Mendivil’s sentence and placed him on two years of supervised probation

to be served upon his imprisonment release. Mendivil appealed, and we 

have jurisdiction under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) 

sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict 

and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant. State v. 

Mendoza, 248 Ariz. 6, 11, ¶ 1, n.1 (App. 2019).
STATE v. MENDIVIL

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 Mendivil argues he was entitled to 81 days of presentence 

incarceration credit for count one—one day more than the 80 days the 

superior court credited him. The State agrees that Mendivil is entitled to 81 

days of credit.

¶5 A defendant sentenced to prison is entitled to have all time

spent in custody for the offense credited towards their imprisonment.

A.R.S. § 13-712(B). “[F]or purposes of presentence incarceration credit, 

‘custody’ begins when a defendant is booked into a detention facility.” State 

v. Carnegie, 174 Ariz. 452, 454 (App. 1993). Moreover, a defendant is entitled 

to a full day of credit for any partial day of incarceration, including the day 

of booking. Id. However, a defendant is not entitled to presentence 

incarceration credit for the day their sentence is imposed because the day 

of sentencing counts as the first day of their sentence. State v. Hamilton, 153 

Ariz. 244, 246 (App. 1987). A court’s failure to grant a defendant full credit 

for presentence incarceration constitutes fundamental error. State v. Ritch, 

160 Ariz. 495, 498 (App. 1989).

¶6 Mendivil was booked and released on June 16, 2018, which 

amounts to one day of presentence incarceration. Following his convictions, 

Mendivil was held in custody from December 9, 2019, until his sentencing 

on February 27, 2020, which amounts to 80 days of presentence 

incarceration. Added together, Mendivil was entitled to 81 days of 

presentence incarceration credit. Therefore, the superior court erred by

awarding Mendivil only 80 days of presentence incarceration credit.

CONCLUSION

¶7 We modify Mendivil’s sentence on Count One to reflect that 

he is entitled to 81 days of presentence incarceration credit.