Court Opinion

ID: 9599824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:21:41.660897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:46.983567
License: Public Domain

VAN CISE, Judge,
dissenting:
On December 2, 1982, defendant was sentenced to the Department of Corrections (the Department) for a term of 18 months after his guilty plea to second degree forgery. On February 10, 1983, he was transferred by the Department to the Community Responsibility Center in Lakewood as an inmate on community placement status. On March 12, he escaped. Time ceased to run on his forgery sentence. A warrant was issued for his arrest.
On April 11 he was arrested and was jailed. A Department “hold” was also placed on him. After a Department hearing, his parole eligibility date was recalculated, and he was reclassified to a more secure facility. Initially charged with escape, the charge was reduced to attempted escape. On May 23, he pled guilty to that charge and was sentenced to the Department for a term of one year to run consecutively with the forgery sentence being served.
From the time of his arrest on April 11, his confinement was credited as time served on his forgery sentence. For that reason, the trial court declined to give him credit on his sentence for attempted escape for the 43 days he spent in jail from the date of his arrest until he was sentenced on that charge.
The majority concludes that Schubert v. People, supra and Torand v. People, supra, mandate that these 43 days of confinement be credited on the sentence with respect to the attempted escape. I do not agree, and, therefore, respectfully dissent.
Admittedly, there is language in these cases that appears to support the majority’s position. However, the rationale of *626both cases is expressed in Schubert where the court states:
“To construe § 16-11-306 as requiring credit for any presentence confinement served in connection with an unrelated criminal charge or sentence would produce adverse consequences for the administration of justice that were obviously beyond the contemplation of the legislature .... This construction would also result in double credit for the offender who, prior to sentencing, was already serving time on a previously imposed sentence....”
Here, crediting the 43 days of presen-tence confinement (as to the attempted escape charge) against the earlier forgery sentence which he was then serving and to which the later sentence is consecutive, assures the defendant full credit against his total term of imprisonment — and he is entitled to no more.
I would affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s Crim. P. 35(a) motion.