T he d efend ant tes t i f i ed a t his S ep t em b er 2 6 , 2 0 0 3 , resent enci ng he ari ng that he w as o ri gi nal l y a rr est ed on June 1 30 , 19 97 , and t he t r i al cour t s t at ed t hat i t s not es r ef l ect ed an ar r es t dat e of Jun e 30 , 199 7. T he t r i al cour t coul d hav e been
r ef er r i n g t o t h e pr es en t en ce re por t , wh i ch al s o re f l ec t ed a n ar r es t dat e of

Ju n e 30, 1997. T h e St at e ag r ee d t h at J u n e 30, (c o n tinu e d ...) 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs N ove m be r 17, 200 4
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . TIMO THY MAURICE REYNOLDS

Direc t Appeal fromthe Circ uit Court for Giles County

No. 8369 JimT. Hamilton, Judge

No. M2003- 02551-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Fe bruary 10, 2005

T h e d e f e n d a n tw a s c o n v i c t e d o f a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y , a C l a s s B f e l o n y , a n d s e n t e n c e d a s a R a n g e I, stand ardof

fe nd e r t o e ig ht y e ars in the Te nn e sse e De pa rt me nt of Cor

re c tio n (“ TD OC ” ). On app e a l, he asse rts the t rial court should have give n him pretria l jail cre dit for tim e served in fe dera l prison
on an unre lated fe dera l conviction. Following our rev i ew , we aff irm the sentenc e but re mand for
e ntry of a c or re c te d ju dg me nt.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of the Ci r c uit

Co ur t A ffirm e d and Re m ande d forEnt r y o f a C or r e c te d Judg m e nt

A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J J ., joined.

Claudia S. J ack, D istrict Publi c De fende r, and Robert H. Stovall, Jr., Assistant Public De fende r, for the app e lla nt, Ti mot

hy Mauric e Re y no lds

. Paul G. Sum me rs , Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Jenn if e r L . B le ds oe , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; T

. Michae l Bottoms, District Attorney Gene ral; and Patric k S. Butler, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION

F ACTS AND P ROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is the third tim e the de fendant has bee n befor e this court. The de fendant was ar rested on J une 30, 1997, for

ag g ravated robbe ry
. Whil e aw aiting trial i n the Giles County J ail, the 1(

. . . con t i n u ed) 1 1997, was t h e or i g i n al ar r es t dat e; how ev er , t h e r es en t en ci n g ju dg men t f or m r ef l ec t s pre t r i al c r edi t f

r om Ju n e 25, 1997. As di s cu s s ed i n

f ra , t h e j u dg men t for m s h ou l d r ef l ect p ret r i al j ai l c r edi t f r om Ju n e 30, 1997, t h e i n i t i al da t e of
c o n fine m e n t i n the G iles C o u n ty Ja il.
-2- defe ndant was a

ppare ntly rele ased into the custody of fede ral authorities on Aug ust 25, 1997, on an unrelated bank r obbery

char g e. He subsequently

pled g uiltyto the fede ral c harg e and w as sentenc ed to eig hty months in t he fe dera l prison. On Aug ust 31, 1998, the defe ndant was c onvicted by a Giles County jury of ag g ravated robbery , and he was sentenc ed as a Rang e I , standard of fende r to twelve y ear s in the TDOC. On direc t a ppeal, we reve rsed the trial court and rema nded for a new trial based
on a vio la tio n o f the ri g ht t o c ou ns e l a ndfailu reto c ha rg e the jury on le sse r- inc lud e d of fe ns e s. State
v. Ti mothy M. Re y no lds , No

. M1 99 8- 00 05 9- CCA -R 3- CD , 20 00 WL 14 70 2, a t *6 (Ten n. Cr im. App. J an. 7, 2000). O n J anuary 17, 2001, the def

endant wa s ag ain convicte d by a jury and wa s sentenc ed to twenty

y ear s in th e T DOC as a Ra ng e I I , multipl e off ender , with the sentenc e to run consecutively

to his unrelated f

eder al sentenc e. He ag ain appe aled, a lleg ing insuff iciency of the evidenc e, trial c ourt err or in the exclusion of certain co m m en t s in defense counsel’s c losing
ar guments, and sentenc ing e rror . We affirmed the convic tion, but because the re cord, throug h no fa ult of e it her part y , didno t c on ta in c e rt a in e xhibi ts “ e sse nti a l” to s e nte nc ing thede fe nd a nt a s a Rang e I I , multipl e offe nder, we rema nded for rese ntencing

. State v. TimothyMaurice Rey nolds, No. M2001-00 9 0 0 -C C A- R 3-CD, 2002 WL 31757484, at *1 (Te nn. Crim. App. Dec. 6, 2002) . The defe ndant appa

rently completed his fe dera l sentenc e and was returned to Giles County on J une 23, 2003. The trial court conducte d a rese ntencing hearing on September 26, 2003, and sentenc ed the defe ndant to eig ht y ear s as a Range I , standard of fende r. He was g rante d pretria l jail credit fr om J une 30, 1997 to Aug ust 25, 1997, and from June 23, 2003 to September 26, 2003.
AN AL YSI S

The de fendant arg ues he should have rec eived jail cr edit on his Tenne ssee sentencefor the
e nti re e ig hty

mon ths he wa s in fe de ra l priso n o n t he unr e la te d b a nk ro bb e ry c ha rg e be c aus e Tenne ssee ha d “re linquished primary custody to the fede ral g overnme nt.” We disag ree
. We b e g in o ur

a na ly sis by

no tin g that the defe nd a nt d id n ot r a ise thi s is su e a t hi s tria ls, his prior sente ncing hear

ing, or in either prior appea l to this court, even thoug h he wa s in feder al prison du ri ng the e nti re pe ri od . H e didc ha llenge h is s e nte nc ing c la ssi fi c a tio n a s a Ra ng e I I , mu lti ple offe nder in hi s s ec o n d ap peal to this court, and w e noted that “ the trial court . . . ordere d the
se nte nc e to r

un c on se c uti ve ly

to a n un re la te d fe de ra l se nte nc e ,” a de c isi on wh ic h th e de fe nd a nt d id
no t c ha lle ng e in that app e a l. T imo thy Mauric e Re y no lds , 2 00 2 WL 31 75 74 84 , at *2 . N on e the le ss, beca use the re cord doe s not contain either the ori ginal judgme nt form or the judg ment form on
re tr ia l, w e wi ll l imi t ou r re vie w to the pr e se nt se nte nc e a nd jud g me nt fo rm a nd a dd re ss the me ri ts of the de fendant’s contention.

Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 4 0- 23 -10 1(c) provid e s th a t a de fe nd a nt i s e nti tle d to
rec eive c redit, towar d his ulti mate sente nce, f or time spent in jail awaiting dispositi on:-3- The trial c ourt shall, at the time the sentence is imposed and the de fe nd a nt i s c omm itt e d to jail, the wo rk ho us e or the state penitentiary for imprisonment, r ender the judgme nt of the court so as to a ll ow th e de fe nd a nt c re dit on these nte nc e fo r any

pe ri odof tim e for which the defe ndant was committed and held in the cit yj ai l or juvenile court detention prior to waiver of juvenile c ourt jurisdiction, or county jail or workhouse , pending arr aignm en t and trial. The defe ndant shall also re ceive cre dit on the sentenc e for the time served in the jail, workhouse or p en i tentiary subsequent to any

conviction arising out of the orig inal offe nse for which the defendant was tried.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 23-101(c ) (2003) . I n Tri gg v . State, 523 S.W .2d 375 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1975), we interpre ted t his statute to prec lude re lief for a state prisoner see king pr etrial jail cr edit for time served on an unrelated fede ral sentenc e, holding that “[i] t is onlywhen the time spe nt in jail or prison is due to or, as the statute say s, ‘arises out of’ the of fense for whic h the sentenc e ag ainst which the cr edit is claimed that such allowanc e become s a matter of rig ht.” I d. at 376. I n State v. Fr ederick C av i t t , No. E1999-00304- CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL964941 (Tenn. Crim. App. July13, 2000), we observe d that this statute does not contemplate pretrial jail cre dit for an unrelated fe dera l sentence :

This Cour t h as re peate dly held that § 40-23-101( c) pr ovides for
cre dits ag ainst the sentenc e only if the inca

rce ration, claimed as the basis for the c redits, ari s es fr om the offe nse for which the se ntence was imposed. The statute does not se cure pretria l jail credits when a defe ndant: (1) confined in Fede ral P r i s o n on separate fede ral convic tions is t ried and found guilty of a Tennessee state charge ; (2) is convicted a nd incar cer ated in ano t h er state af ter e scaping the Tenne ssee prison sy stem ; o r (3) esca pes conf inement in Tenne ssee, is a rr e s t e d a n d a c q u i t t e d o f

c h ar g e s i n a n o t h e r

s t a t e , a n d r e s i s ts extradition back to Tennesse e for nearly one y ear
. I d. at *2 (e mphasis added) (citing State v. Abernath y , 6 49 S.W .2d 285, 286 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983); Majee d v. State, 621 S.W .2d 153, 154-55 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1981); Trig g, 5 2 3 S.W .2d at 376).

I n the pre sent ca se, the de fendant was inca rce rate d in f

ed er al prison for bank robbery , a conviction that was in no way relat ed t o t he state c onviction for ag g ravated robbe ry , which is the
su bje c t of the pr e se nt a

pp e a l. T herefore , he is not e nti tle d to a ny

pr e tr ia l jail c re dit

on his state sentenc e for

time served in f

eder al prison. The defe ndant’s reliance on Weekes v. F leming, 301 F .3d 11 75 (1 0thCir . 2 00 2) , is mis pla c e d. I n Wee ke s, the Un ite d Stat e s Court of App e a ls fo r the Te nth C i rc u i t , c o n s t r u i n g federal statut e s, de te rm ine d th a t th e inm a te wa s o we d c re dit on his federal
se nte nc e , w hic h w a s in te rr up te d w he n h e wa s r e turne d to I daho to ser ve a state se nte nc e , b e c aus e I daho ha d r e lin qu ish e d p ri mary c us tod y to the Un ite d St a te s a ndthe Un ite d St a te s w a s u nd e r n o d uty to return the inmate to state custody afte r fede ral sente ncing . We first note that the inmate in Weeke s-4-

beg an his fede ral sente nce, w as transported to I daho to compl et e a state sentenc e, and w as then tr a ns fe rr e d b a c k to fe de ra l priso n to c ompl ete th at sent e nc e . A dd iti on a lly , th e state se nte nc e in Weekes provide d specific ally that it was to be ser ved conc urre ntly with the fede ral sentenc e. I n the pr e se nt c a se , th e de fe nd a nt’ s st a te se nte nc e ha d not ev e n be e n impo se d whe n he wa s tr a ns po rt e d to fede ral prison a nd he wa s returne d to Tennesse e to beg in his state sentence only afte r his fede ral senten ce h ad fully

expired. I n addition, the defe ndant’s twenty -y ear state sentenc e, which w e rema nded, and his e ight- y ear sentenc e, the subjec t of the pre sent appe al, wer e both to be serve d
consec utively

to the fede ral sente nce. T his was prope r pursua nt to Rul e 32(c )(2) of the Te nnessee Rul e s o f C ri min a l Pr oc e du re , w hic h s ta te s in pe rt ine nt p art :

I f the de fendant has additional sentenc es or portions thereof to serve, as th e r e s u lt o f c o n v ic ti o n in o th e r s tate s o r in f e d e r a l c o u r t, the
se nte nc e imp os e d s ha ll be c on se c uti ve the re to unl e ss the c ou rt sh a ll determine in the exercise of its discretion that g ood cause exit s to run the se nte nc e s c on c ur

re ntl y a nde xplic itl y

so or de rs
. As an a dditional matter, the def endant ci t es no authority , other than Wee kes, for the proposition that “[i ]f .

. . he wa s transfe rre d under a writ of habe as cor

pus proseque ndum,” then “the state should be re quired to produc e that docume nt or g ive him cre dit for the time spent in the fe dera l sy stem.” The r ecor d is devoid of any documents re lating to the tr ansfe r of the defe ndant to the fede ral sy stem, the fede ral in d i ctm ent, the fe deral judgment, or documents re lating to his fe dera l sentenc e. The only

orig inal document in the re cord that even e videnc es the de fendant’s fede ral incar cer ation is a Fe dera l Bure au of Prisons “Inmate Reque st To Staff” f orm dated A pril 11, 2002, and filled out by

the def endant. We cannot conclude f rom the re cord that the exercise of jurisdiction over the defe ndant by

the United States Gove rnment wa s somehow improper or that the State of Tenne ssee is now re quired to cr edit the def endant time on his sent en ce f or an unr elated f

eder al char g e. Finally , the judg ment form re flec ts that t h e d ef en dant was g iven pre trial jail cre dit for the periods of June 25, 1997 to Aug ust 25 , 1997, and fr om J une 23, 2003 to September 26, 2003. H o w e v e r , b y th e d e f

e n d a n t’ s te s ti mo n y a t th e s e n te n c in g h e ar in g , h e w a s n o t arr e s te d and inca rc er ated until J une 30, 1997. No e x planation is g iven in the re cord f or this oversig ht, and we conclude that the def

endant wa s g iven five day s cre dit he did not earn.

CO NC LU SION Following our revie w of the rec ord, we aff irm the eig ht-y ear sentenc e imposed by the trial court but remand for entry of a corr ecte d judgme nt to reflec t that the pretria l jail credit to which the de fe nd a nt i s e nti tled ran f ro m June30 , 1 99 7 to Au g us t 25 , 1 99 7, a ndfr om Jun e 23 , 2 00 3 to September 26, 2003.

___________________________________ ALAN E. GL

ENN, JUDGE