Opinion ID: 2633390
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Credit Due on Each of the Consecutive Sentences

Text: Tauiliili, however, claims that the sentencing court abused its discretion by refusing to grant presentence credit for each of his consecutive sentences. In his opening brief, Tauiliili suggests that HRS § 706-671 entitles him to presentence credit with respect to each sentence imposed in connection with Counts I, II, and III. We disagree. The commentary to HRS § 706-671 states in relevant part that [t]his section provides for a result which the Code deems fair and provides for some equalization . . . between those defendants who obtain pre-sentence release and those who do not. Statutes giving credit for presentence confinement were designed to ensure equal treatment of all defendants whether or not they are incarcerated prior to conviction. In re Atiles, 191 Cal.Rptr. 452, 662 P.2d 910, 911 (Cal.1983). Granting presentence credit, therefore, seeks to place an in-custody criminal defendant who cannot afford to post bail in the same position as his counterpart with bail money. Nissel v. Pearce, 307 Or. 102, 764 P.2d 224, 226 (1988). Once credit has been granted, no additional purpose is served by granting a second or double credit against a later consecutive sentence. State v. Cuen, 158 Ariz. 86, 761 P.2d 160, 162 (App.1988). Courts in other jurisdictions having similar statutes agree that a defendant who receives consecutive sentences is entitled to a presentence credit only once against the aggregate of the consecutive terms, while a defendant sentenced to concurrent terms in effect receives credit against each sentence. See Endell v. Johnson, 738 P.2d 769, 771 (Alaska App.1987); State v. Miranda, 108 N.M. 789, 779 P.2d 976 (1989); Nissel, 764 P.2d at 228; State v. Hoch, 102 Idaho 351, 630 P.2d 143 (1981). Thus, when concurrent sentences are imposed, presentence credit is applied once. The credit applied once, in effect, is applied against each concurrent sentence. This is done because the longest term of the concurrent sentences determines the total length of the imprisonment. However, when consecutive sentences are imposed, credit for presentence imprisonment is properly granted against only the aggregate of the consecutive sentence terms. In the present case, to allow multiple credit for consecutive sentences would defeat the legislative purpose underlying consecutive sentencing. Were this not so, the more consecutive sentences a criminal defendant received, the more credit he would accrue for presentence imprisonment. This would not be the result intended by the legislature, as this construction of the statute would actually penalize those who could afford to post bail and would thus defeat the purpose of equalization noted in the commentary to HRS § 706-671 (1993). HRS § 706-668.5 (1993) [5] permits consecutive sentencing if multiple terms of imprisonment are imposed on a criminal defendant at the same time. The legislative purpose of the statute is to give the sentencing court discretion to sentence a defendant to a term of imprisonment to run either concurrently or consecutively. State v. Gaylord, 78 Hawai`i 127, 146, 890 P.2d 1167, 1186-1187 (1995). Discretionary use of consecutive sentences is properly imposed in order to deter future criminal behavior of the defendant, to insure public safety, and to assure just punishment for the crimes committed. Id. Absent clear evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that a sentencing court will have considered all factors before imposing concurrent or consecutive terms of imprisonment under HRS § 706-606 (1993). [6] State v. Sinagoga, 81 Hawai`i 421, 427, 918 P.2d 228, 234 (App.1996). In light of the underlying objectives of consecutive sentencing, Tauiliili was not entitled to receive credit on each of his consecutive sentences. Tauiliili's interpretation of HRS § 706-671 would undermine the sentencing court's decision to impose consecutive imprisonment terms. We do not believe that the legislature intended to allow a double credit for presentence confinement without expressly saying so. Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court correctly interpreted HRS § 706-671 by applying Tauiliili's 853 days of presentence credit only once against the aggregate of his consecutive sentences.