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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JESSE XAVIER NAVARRETE, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0286

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County

No. S1400CR201100825

The Honorable Maria Elena Cruz, Judge

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Adriana M. Zick

Counsel for Appellee

Yuma County Public Defender’s Office, Yuma

By Edward F. McGee

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. NAVARRETE

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Patricia K. Norris and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

D O W N I E, Judge:

¶1 Jesse Xavier Navarrete contends the superior court erred in 

calculating presentence incarceration credit. We conclude Navarrete is 

entitled to six additional days’ credit and therefore affirm his sentence as 

modified.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In January 2012, Navarrete pled guilty to one count of 

aggravated driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a class 

four felony. He was placed on intensive probation for 48 months. As a 

condition of probation, Navarrete was ordered to serve four months in the 

custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections. 

¶3 Navarrete was released from custody on February 24, 2012 —

the date of his sentencing — because he had accrued 223 days of 

presentence incarceration credit. After a series of violations, Navarrete’s 

probation was revoked on April 16, 2014. Navarrete was sentenced to the 

presumptive term of 2.5 years and received 584 days of presentence 

incarceration credit. 

¶4 Navarrete timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised 

Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION

¶5 Navarrete argues he was entitled to 600 days of presentence 

incarceration credit, not 584. The State agrees Navarrete’s credit was 

improperly calculated, but asserts he is only entitled to an additional 5 days. 

¶6 As relevant to these proceedings, Navarrete was in custody 

for the following periods of time: (1) July 16, 2011 to February 24, 2012; (2) 

April 8, 2012 to April 10, 2012; (3) April 17, 2012 to April 19, 2012; (4) April 

29, 2012 to May 1, 2012; (5) July 13, 2012 to October 10, 2012; (6) November 
STATE v. NAVARRETE

Decision of the Court

3

9, 2012 to November 26, 2012; (7) December 7, 2012 to December 10, 2012;

(8) January 13, 2013 to January 14, 2013; (9) January 18, 2013 to January 20, 

2013; (10) January 25, 2013 to January 27, 2013; (11) February 20, 2013 to 

February 27, 2013; (12) March 4, 2013 to July 23, 2013; and (13) January 19, 

2014 to April 16, 2014.

¶7 The parties agree the superior court erred by giving 

Navarrete credit for only two days for periods (2), (3), (4), (9), and (10). On 

those occasions, Navarrete was incarcerated for a 48 hour period that 

extended over three calendar days. The parties also agree Navarrete should 

have received two days’ credit instead of one day for period (8). On that 

occasion, Navarrete was in custody from January 13 until January 14. We 

agree with the parties as to these periods of time. Navarrete is entitled to a

day of credit for each calendar day spent in custody, regardless of the 

amount of time actually served on each day. See State v. Carnegie, 174 Ariz. 

452, 454, 850 P.2d 690, 692 (App. 1993). The superior court only awarded 

two days of credit for each of the 48 hour periods and only one day of credit 

for the January 13 to January 14 period. Navarrete is entitled to six 

additional days of credit.1 

¶8 Navarrete has not established entitlement to additional credit. 

In his opening brief, he erroneously lists time spent in custody from 

September 2, 2011 to September 11, 2011 twice, causing his calculations to 

be inflated by 10 days. 

 

1 We disagree with the State’s contention Navarrete should not have 

received one day’s credit for February 24, 2012. A defendant is not entitled 

to presentence incarceration credit for the day he is sentenced because that 

day constitutes the first day of his sentence and is thus not presentence

incarceration. State v. Hamilton, 153 Ariz. 244, 246, 735 P.2d 854, 856 (App.

1987). However, February 24, 2012 is the date Navarrete was placed on 

probation and released from custody. He did not begin serving a term of 

incarceration imposed at sentencing on that date.
STATE v. NAVARRETE

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶9 For the reasons stated, we modify Navarrete’s sentence to 

reflect entitlement to 590 days of presentence incarceration credit, see State 

v. Ritch, 160 Ariz. 495, 499, 774 P.2d 234, 238 (App. 1989), and affirm his 

sentence as modified.