Opinion ID: 497069
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The South Carolina Time

Text: 8 Palmer waived extradition to South Carolina to answer probation violation charges in that state. The district court reasoned that, because the South Carolina charges were factually and legally distinct from the Florida charges, Palmer's detention in South Carolina did not constitute preconviction custody for the Florida offenses. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
9 On August 23, 1982, Palmer waived extradition to answer charges alleging South Carolina probation violations. On September 12, 1982, Palmer was found not guilty of violating the terms of his probation. The district court properly concluded that Palmer is not entitled to credit against his sentence for that pretrial jail time. Palmer was not convicted of the offense for which the time was attributable. 10
11 On September 13, 1982, Palmer was arrested and detained further in South Carolina solely on the basis of the Florida fugitive warrant. Initially no bail was set while Palmer awaited extradition. On October 7, 1982, bail was set. For the reasons set forth above in Section II(A) of this opinion, Palmer is not entitled to credit against his sentence for the pretrial jail time between September 13 and October 6 inclusive. 12
13 After bail was set on October 7, Palmer was unable to post it because of his indigence. On December 21, 1982, after lengthy extradition proceedings, Palmer was turned over to Florida authorities. The district court concluded that Palmer was not entitled to credit against his sentence for the pretrial jail time between October 7 and December 21 inclusive. We reverse. 14 We have not discovered, and the parties have not shown us, any case dealing with the precise issue raised by Palmer's appeal. Specifically, does the Fourteenth Amendment require that credit be granted for presentencing incarceration in another jurisdiction where the criminal defendant has been given the statutory maximum sentence and could not, because of his indigence, make bail pending extradition? 1 15 This Circuit has recently followed and expanded the general rule stated in Jackson that a defendant who is unable to post bond because of his indigence and who is given the statutory maximum sentence for his offense is entitled to credit for time spent in jail prior to sentencing. In Crowden v. Bowen, supra, 734 F.2d 641, we held that a defendant in such circumstances is also entitled to credit for time spent in postconviction custody pending appeal. We perceived no distinction in principle between a denial of credit for time spent in presentencing custody that results in the detention of indigents longer than the maximum period which can be imposed by law and a similar denial when the detention occurs after sentencing, pending appeal. Id. at 642. Similarly, we perceive no distinction in principle between the presentencing incarceration of an indigent criminal defendant in the state where he will be tried and his presentencing detention in another state while awaiting extradition. 16 Dugger argues that the question of whether Palmer receives credit for this time is a matter of Florida law. Dugger contends that Kronz, supra, 462 So.2d 450, governs Palmer's request for time credit and consequently that Palmer is not entitled to such credit. 17 In Kronz, the Florida Supreme Court examined the state statute providing that the court imposing a sentence shall allow a defendant credit for all the time spent in the county jail before sentence. Fla.Stat. Sec. 921.161(1). Kronz was arrested and held in South Carolina on a fugitive warrant for an escape from a Florida jail. He unsuccessfully fought extradition and eventually pleaded guilty to the escape charge. Kronz sought credit for time served in South Carolina. The Florida Supreme Court concluded that Section 921.161(1) requires the trial judge to give credit only for time served in Florida county jails pending disposition of criminal charges. The trial judge does, however, have the inherent discretionary authority to award credit for time served in other jurisdictions while awaiting transfer to Florida. 462 So.2d at 451. 18 Dugger's argument addresses the issue of whether a state, as an act of legislative grace, has provided for time credit. That is not the issue in the present case--the issue is whether not giving credit violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, Dugger's reliance on Kronz is misplaced; Kronz plays no part in answering the constitutional question presented by this case. As noted above, the general rule that time credit requires state statutory support gives way, as required by the equal protection clause, when the defendant receives the statutory maximum and cannot meet bail because of indigence. As the Supreme Court recognized in Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 241-42, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 2022-23, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970), the general rule gives way because Fourteenth Amendment protections are triggered and the state has no countervailing interest: [O]nce the State has defined the outer limits of incarceration necessary to satisfy its penological interests and policies, it may not then subject a certain class of convicted defendants to a period of imprisonment beyond the statutory maximum solely by reason of their indigence. 19 Similarly, we reject the notion that our holding infringes Florida's sovereignty by giving credit for jail time imposed by another state when that state set the bail pending extradition. South Carolina itself did not impose the jail time; rather, it imposed the jail time because Florida had requested South Carolina to hold Palmer. In addition, no infringement has occurred. Williams recognizes that a state has a right to set maximum sentences to achieve penological interests. But the Supreme Court went on to hold that this state interest is not infringed when a state seeks to impose a penalty upon a defendant that exceeds the state-created statutory maximum and that penalty results from the defendant's indigence. Lastly, the fact that South Carolina set bail pending extradition is irrelevant; the offenses included in the Florida fugitive warrant were bailable offenses in Florida, see Fla. Const. art. 1, Sec. 14, and the warrant itself contemplated that bail would be set. 20 Finally, we reject the notion that Palmer could have avoided the South Carolina jail time by waiving his right to contest extradition. We hold Crowden controlling on this point. In that case, 21 [u]nder Alabama law a criminal defendant who appeals his conviction has the option of being transferred to the penitentiary pending appeal of having his sentence suspended and either going free on bail, if eligible and financially able, or remaining in county jail. A person taking the former route receives credit on his sentence for this detention, while one pursuing the latter course does not.... [T]he state argues that only by petitioner's voluntary act of sitting out the appeal in county jail rather than state prison was he denied postsentencing credit. What is at issue here, however, is not whether petitioner unilaterally chose to be detained in county jail once his inability to post bond mandated his continued incarceration pending appeal, but whether he may be detained at all without credit while wealthier defendants go free on bail, with the result that petitioner and other indigents serve terms beyond the statutory maximum. We hold that he may not. 22 734 F.2d at 643. Similarly, we hold that Palmer need not have waived his right to contest extradition in order to receive credit against his sentence. 23 AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part.