Opinion ID: 1175465
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Defective Minute Entry?

Text: At sentencing the trial judge stated: THE COURT: On the aggravated assault dangerous, Class 3, I will sentence him to life imprisonment. He shall serve no less than 25 years, which sentence is consecutive to the parole sentence he's presently serving with DOC, and I don't know the number of that but I will get that. On the kidnapping I will sentence him to 15.75 flat, consecutive to the sentence he's presently serving parole on. The two sentences will be concurrent. 15.75 is flat under [13] 604.02(b). The aggravated assault is under 13-604.02(a). This will be concurrent, but consecutive to the present sentence that he has under CR 137394, Maricopa County Superior Court. I think it was for theft in this particular case, and on which he was released on parole on March 11, 1987. ..... MR. SHEPERD: Your honor, I was a little confused. I believe what you sentenced him to is a mandatory life term on Count [II], aggravated assault. THE COURT: Right, dangerous. MR. SHEPERD: Dangerous. THE COURT: Concurrent  MR. SHEPERD: With Count [I] kidnapping ..... MR. SHEPERD: The kidnapping THE COURT: 15.75 years flat consecutive to  they both are consecutive to the theft that he was on parole for. They are both concurrent to each other, but one is a life term on the aggravated assault dangerous and the other is a flat term, 15.75. The trial court sentenced the defendant to a presumptive term of 15.75 years, which reflects two prior felony convictions. The minute entry incorrectly indicates that the charge was aggravated and dangerous. Defendant notes that the minute entry indicated that he had two prior felony convictions when he committed the offense of aggravated assault, dangerous, which is superfluous under the mandates of A.R.S. § 13-604.02(A). The state agrees that the minute entries do not follow the sentences. Oral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry. State v. Hanson, 138 Ariz. 296, 304-05, 674 P.2d 850, 858-59 (App. 1983). We, therefore, remand the matter to the trial court with directions to correct the minute entries to conform to the sentences imposed by the court. J. Credit for 144 days of Pre-trial Incarceration Defendant contends that the trial court erroneously failed to give him credit for time served prior to sentencing. We disagree. At the time of defendant's arrest, the Department of Corrections placed a hold on defendant due to his parole violation. At sentencing, the trial court ordered that the sentences imposed run consecutively to the sentence being served in Maricopa County Superior Court Cause No. CR-137394. Defendant is not entitled to double credit. State v. Horrisberger, 133 Ariz. 569, 570, 653 P.2d 26, 27 (App. 1982). We find that the trial court did not err when it refused to give the defendant credit for time served.