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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

PAUL ELLIOT TAYLOR, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0607 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2016-001575-001

 CR2016-005559-001

The Honorable William R. Wingard, Judge Pro Tempore

REVIEW GRANTED AND RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Paul Elliot Taylor, Florence

Petitioner

FILED 2-14-2019
STATE v. TAYLOR

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 Paul Elliot Taylor petitions this Court for review from the 

dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief of-right (“PCR”). We have 

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

but deny relief.

¶2 In June 2017, Taylor entered two plea agreements, pleading 

guilty to one count of aggravated DUI in CR 2016-001575 and one count of 

aggravated DUI and one count of possession of dangerous drugs in CR 

2016-005559. As set forth in the plea agreements, Taylor stipulated to a term 

of 4.5 years’ imprisonment in CR 2016-001575 and a consecutive term of 2.5 

years’ imprisonment in CR 2016-005559. The trial court sentenced Taylor in 

accordance with the plea agreements’ terms and awarded him presentence 

incarceration credit of 471 days in CR 2016-001575 and 318 days in CR 

2016-005559.

¶3 After sentencing, Taylor moved to correct the presentence 

incarceration credit awarded to him in CR 2016-005559. See Ariz. R. Crim. 

P. (“Rule”) 24.4 (“The court on its own or on a party’s motion may, at any 

time, correct clerical errors, omissions, and oversights in the record.”). 

Concluding Taylor had “received the appropriate credited time[,]” the trial

court dismissed the motion to correct. 

¶4 Taylor then timely commenced Rule 32 proceedings in CR 

2016-005559 but not in CR 2016-001575. Filing identical PCRs in both CR 

2016-005559 and CR 2016-001575, Taylor argued that the trial court

improperly calculated his presentence incarceration credit in both cause 

numbers. The trial court dismissed the PCRs, and this petition for review 

followed.

¶5 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this Court will 

not disturb a trial court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. State 

v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 (2012). The burden is on Taylor to show 

that the trial court abused its discretion. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 
STATE v. TAYLOR

Decision of the Court

3

538 ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden on review to establish abuse of 

discretion).

¶6 On review, Taylor reasserts his claim that the trial court 

incorrectly calculated his presentence incarceration credit in both cause 

numbers. As the trial court found, Taylor failed to file a notice of 

post-conviction relief in CR 2016-001575, and his PCR in that matter was 

therefore defective and untimely. For these reasons, we do not consider his

challenge to the presentence incarceration credit awarded in CR 

2016-001575.

¶7 Because Taylor timely filed both his notice and PCR in CR 

2016-005559, however, we consider the merits of that claim. The failure to 

grant a defendant full credit for any presentence incarceration time 

constitutes fundamental error. State v. Cofield, 210 Ariz. 84, 86 ¶ 10 (App. 

2005).

¶8 “All time actually spent in custody pursuant to an offense 

until the prisoner is sentenced to imprisonment for such offense shall be 

credited against the term of imprisonment[.]” A.R.S. § 13–712(B). Custody 

commences “when a defendant is booked into a detention facility,” State v. 

Carnegie, 174 Ariz. 452, 453–54 (App. 1993), but does not include the date a 

sentence is imposed, State v. Hamilton, 153 Ariz. 244, 245–46 (App. 1987).

¶9 As reflected in the record, Taylor was arrested on October 4, 

2016, pursuant to a bench warrant issued in CR 2016-005559. Because he 

was on felony release at the time of his arrest and therefore non-bailable, he

remained in custody on the charges in CR 2016-005559 until he was 

sentenced on August 17, 2017, for a total of 317 days. Therefore, the trial

court fully credited him all of his time in custody by awarding him 318

days’ presentence incarceration credit in CR 2016-005559.

¶10 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief.