Opinion ID: 2046882
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Pre-sentence Confinement Credit

Text: The last contention concerns the computation by the trial court of the time already served by Collins. Defendant Hickland was credited with 215 days and Collins with 213 days. Both defendants were apprehended simultaneously and continuously remained in the custody of the Grant County authorities. Collins contends that he is entitled to the same amount of credit that Hickland received. The state argues that Collins waived any error by his failure to object at the time of his sentencing. The sentencing court is required by statute to allow credit for all pre-sentence confinement resulting from the charge for which the sentence is imposed. Ind. Code § 35-8-2.5-1 (1976). From the record before us, both of these men were apprehended at the same time and tried simultaneously. Both were in continuous custody from arrest to trial either at the Grant County jail or Indiana Reformatory. As negligible as a two-day discrepancy may be, one of the credits is incorrect, and we cannot ignore it. If an error in sentencing appears on its face to be erroneous, it may be raised for the first time on appeal. Kleinrichert v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 537, 297 N.E.2d 822. Therefore, we must remand this cause to the trial court for correct compilation of credit for time served pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-8-2.5-1 (1976). The convictions of the defendants are affirmed, but the cause is remanded for correction of the credit for time served. PRENTICE and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur. DeBRULER, J., concurs in result. GIVAN, C.J., dissents.