Court Opinion

ID: 9378434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 15:06:10.384686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:21.073832
License: Public Domain

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
03/10/2023 09:06 AM CST

                                                       - 763 -
                               Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                                        313 Nebraska Reports
                                        STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUEZ
                                              Cite as 313 Neb. 763

                        State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Celvin Ottoniel
                                Castillo-Rodriguez, appellant.
                                                  ___ N.W.2d ___

                                        Filed March 10, 2023.    No. S-22-464.

                 1. Sentences: Appeal and Error. Whether a defendant is entitled to credit
                    for time served and in what amount are questions of law, subject to
                    appellate review independent of the lower court.
                 2. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation presents a ques-
                    tion of law, which an appellate court reviews independently of the
                    lower court.
                 3. Sentences: Records. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-503 (Reissue 2021) requires a
                    sentencing court to separately determine, state, and grant credit for time
                    served, and the court has no discretion to grant more or less credit than
                    is established by the record.
                 4. Sentences. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-503 (Reissue 2021) is intended to ensure
                    that defendants receive all the credit against their jail sentence to which
                    they are entitled—no less, and no more.
                 5. Sentences: Records. When a trial court grants a defendant more or
                    less credit for time served than the defendant actually served, that por-
                    tion of the pronouncement of sentence is erroneous and may be cor-
                    rected to reflect the accurate amount of credit as verified objectively by
                    the record.
                 6. Habeas Corpus: Words and Phrases. A writ of habeas corpus ad
                    prosequendum is a common-law writ issued by a court, ordering the
                    immediate removal of a prisoner from incarceration so that he or she can
                    be brought to another jurisdiction to stand trial on charges for crimes
                    committed within that jurisdiction.
                 7. Habeas Corpus. In Nebraska, writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum
                    have been and continue to be a traditional way of securing the presence
                    of a prisoner located in another jurisdiction.
                 8. Sentences: Records: Proof. Because jail credit is an absolute and
                    objective number established by the record, the party advocating for
                                   - 764 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    313 Nebraska Reports
                     STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUEZ
                           Cite as 313 Neb. 763

    a specific jail credit calculation has the burden to provide the sentencing
    court with a record that establishes such calculation.

  Appeal from the District Court for Hall County: Patrick M.
Lee, Judge. Affirmed.
  Mark Porto, of Wolf, McDermott, Depue, Sabott, Butz &
Porto, L.L.C., for appellant.
   Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Austin N. Relph
for appellee.
  Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
   Stacy, J.
   This criminal appeal challenges the sentencing court’s jail
credit calculation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-503 (Reissue
2021). We find no error in the jail credit calculation on this
record and affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
                               Facts
   On October 25, 2021, Celvin Ottoniel Castillo-Rodriguez
was charged in Hall County with four felony counts of third
degree sexual assault of a child. He waived his right to a pre-
liminary hearing in county court, and the case was bound over
to district court, where an information charging the same four
counts was filed. Eventually, Castillo-Rodriguez entered a no
contest plea to an amended information charging two counts
of child abuse, each a Class I misdemeanor. He was sentenced
to 365 days in the county jail on each count, to be served
consecutively. He was given 94 days of credit against the first
jail term.
   The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court prop-
erly calculated jail credit under § 47-503. Pursuant to that
statute, “Credit against a jail term shall be given to any person
sentenced to a city or county jail for time spent in jail as a
                              - 765 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     313 Nebraska Reports
                  STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUEZ
                        Cite as 313 Neb. 763

result of the criminal charge for which the jail term is imposed
or as a result of conduct upon which such charge is based.” 1 As
relevant here, such credit “shall include, but not be limited to,
time spent in jail: (a) Prior to trial; (b) During trial; [and] (c)
Pending sentence.” 2
   To understand the court’s jail credit calculation and the par-
ties’ arguments, we provide additional background about the
time Castillo-Rodriguez spent in the Hall County jail prior to
trial and pending sentencing.
                      Detention in Hall
                          County Jail
   On October 22, 2021, Castillo-Rodriguez was arrested and
lodged in the Hall County jail on the subject felony charges,
which we will refer to as the “Hall County case.” A few days
later, on October 25, he executed an appearance bond and was
released from custody.
   On October 26, 2021, Castillo-Rodriguez was taken into
custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),
and he was detained by ICE in the Hall County jail. The parties
generally agree that ICE had an agreement to house its detainees
in the Hall County jail, but no such agreement is in our record.
Nor does our record contain documentation of how, why, or
precisely when ICE took custody of Castillo-Rodriguez. No
party contends, however, that Castillo-Rodriguez’ ICE deten-
tion was related to the charges in the Hall County case. The
parties agree that after Castillo-Rodriguez was taken into ICE
custody on October 26, he was continuously detained in the
Hall County jail until his sentencing on May 24, 2022.
   After Castillo-Rodriguez was placed in ICE custody, the
county court judge issued a writ of habeas corpus ad pro-
sequendum addressed to ICE, and the writ was filed in the
Hall County case. The writ was dated October 26, 2021, and
it provided:
1
    § 47-503.
2
    Id.
                                   - 766 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     313 Nebraska Reports
                     STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUEZ
                           Cite as 313 Neb. 763

        IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that you release CELVIN
     OTTONIEL CASTILLO-RODRIGUEZ . . . , now in
     the custody of [ICE], and being held at the Hall County
     Department of Corrections in Grand Island, Nebraska, to
     the custody of the Director of the Hall County Department
     of Corrections, or such officer as the Director deems
     appropriate, on or before the 9th day of December, 2021,
     at the hour of 9:30 AM and each day thereafter as may be
     necessary, for the purpose of attending proceedings in the
     above-referenced case.
        The Defendant will be detained and held without release
     of any kind pending these proceedings. The Defendant
     will be held in the custody of the Hall County Department
     of Corrections until all matters in the County Court and
     District Court of Hall County relating to the above-named
     case number are resolved. Upon conclusion of the case,
     including serving any sentencing, said Defendant is to be
     returned to the custody from which he came as soon as
     practicable under safe and secure conduct in accordance
     with law.
   As discussed in more detail later, a writ of habeas corpus ad
prosequendum is a common-law writ issued by a court to order
the immediate removal of a prisoner from incarceration so that
he or she can be brought to another jurisdiction to stand trial
on charges for crimes committed within that jurisdiction. 3 The
writ is a traditional way to secure the presence of a prisoner
held in another jurisdiction. 4
   On December 30, 2021, Castillo-Rodriguez filed a motion
to revoke his bond in the Hall County case “[f]or the rea-
son that the Defendant [has] an Immigration hold, [and] the
Defendant desire[s] to accumulate time serve[d].” It does
not appear from our record that the county court ruled on
this motion before the case was bound over to district court.
3
    See State v. Williams, 253 Neb. 619, 573 N.W.2d 106 (1997).
4
    Id.
                             - 767 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
                 STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUEZ
                       Cite as 313 Neb. 763

However, at his plea hearing in district court on February
24, 2022, Castillo-Rodriguez’ counsel informed the court he
wanted “to make sure that . . . bond is revoked, Your Honor. .
. . I want to make sure he’s getting credit for this time because
he’s in ICE custody.” The district court formally revoked the
appearance bond in the Hall County case that same day and set
the matter for sentencing on April 6, 2022.
    On March 17, 2022, the district court judge issued a second
writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum addressed to ICE.
Like the first writ issued by the county court, the second
writ referenced the case number for Castillo-Rodriguez’ Hall
County case, and it was filed in that case. The second writ
contained identical language to the first, except the second
writ ordered Castillo-Rodriguez to be released to Hall County
jail officials “on or before the 6th day of April, 2022, at the
hour of 1:30 P.M. and each day thereafter as may be neces-
sary, for the purpose of attending proceedings in the above-
referenced case.”
                            Sentencing
   For reasons which are not clear from our record, the sen-
tencing hearing was continued from April 6 to May 24, 2022.
During the sentencing hearing on May 24, defense counsel
took issue with the jail credit calculation contained in the pre-
sentence investigation report and requested additional credit
for time served. The presentence investigation report identi-
fied two time periods during which Castillo-Rodriguez was in
jail on the Hall County case. The first was from his arrest on
October 22, 2021, until he bonded out on October 25, and the
second was from the date his bond was revoked on February
24, 2022, until the date of sentencing. The presentence inves-
tigation report indicated that between these two time periods
Castillo-Rodriguez was in “ICE custody.”
   When the court asked the State for its position on the request
for additional jail credit, the prosecutor replied:
      I didn’t do the math. I believe the start date is cor-
      rect as [defense counsel] indicated. I think he was in
                              - 768 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
                  STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUEZ
                        Cite as 313 Neb. 763

      custody until maybe [October] 25th as documented in the
      presentence. Then I think he posted the bond, and then he
      was transferred into ICE custody from that point forward.
      I don’t know if there was a revocation of bond filed by
      the defense in this case, but it’s just my understanding
      that he’s been in custody that entire time.
   After confirming that the court file showed bond had been
revoked on February 24, 2022, the court announced its jail
credit determination on the record. The court found Castillo-
Rodriguez was entitled to a total of 94 days of jail credit, cal-
culated as follows:
• 4 days of credit based on being in Hall County jail from
  October 22, 2021 (the date he was arrested), to October 25 (the
  date he bonded out), and
• 90 days of credit based on being in Hall County jail from
  February 24, 2022 (the date his bond was revoked), to May 24
  (the date he was sentenced).
Defense counsel responded that this calculation was “techni-
cally right,” but he asked the court to consider awarding jail
credit for the period before the bond was revoked. He also
asked the court to consider a sentence of probation, and he
provided the court with additional information on the status of
federal immigration proceedings against Castillo-Rodriguez,
explaining:
      He is eligible for a term of probation. He does have —
      he has been subjected to a removal order, but that is on
      appeal and that appeal is to be heard later today actually,
      so that was the impetus for us to ask the Court to get us
      in a little bit early so we can have resolution one way or
      the other to get to his immigration attorney so that Court
      can be advised of all of the circumstances. There’s a
      possibility, given the specific convictions, that [Castillo-
      Rodriguez’] removal order could be removed and he
      could remain in the country.
   The court found Castillo-Rodriguez was not an appropri-
ate candidate for probation and imposed consecutive 1-year
                                  - 769 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     313 Nebraska Reports
                     STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUEZ
                           Cite as 313 Neb. 763

jail sentences with 94 days of jail credit on the first jail
term. 5 Castillo-Rodriguez was then remanded to the custody
of the “Hall County Department of Corrections” to serve his
sentence.
   After sentencing, Castillo-Rodriguez moved for an order
nunc pro tunc requesting additional jail credit. No evidence
was adduced at the hearing on this motion, but defense counsel
relied on the language of § 47-503, as well as the language
of the writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, to argue that
Castillo-Rodriguez was in jail “as a result of the criminal
charge” 6 in the Hall County case from the date of his arrest
through the date of his sentencing. Specifically, defense coun-
sel argued:
      [The writ issued October 26, 2021,] says that the
      Defendant will be detained and held without release of
      any kind pending these proceedings. He will be held in
      the custody of the Hall County Department of Corrections
      until all matters in the County Court and District Court
      of Hall County relating to the above-named case number
      are resolved.
         I think it’s pretty clear under the language of the writ
      that Judge Wetzel ordered . . . that regardless of whether
      [Castillo-Rodriguez] posted bond or not, the bottom line
      was that he was not going to be released from jail until
      all matters related to this case were resolved, and so that
      would be, quote, end quote, time spent in jail as a result
      of the criminal charge for which the jail term is imposed,
      and so I think by all rights, [Castillo-Rodriguez] should
      have received credit from October 26th of 2021 when
      Judge Wetzel issued that [writ] through the date of sen-
      tencing on May 2[4]th.
5
    See State v. Galvan, 305 Neb. 513, 941 N.W.2d 183 (2020) (holding jail
    credit applies only once where defendant has multiple charges or cases
    pending simultaneously), modified on denial of rehearing 306 Neb. 498,
    945 N.W.2d 888.
6
    § 47-503.
                                     - 770 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      313 Nebraska Reports
                       STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUEZ
                             Cite as 313 Neb. 763

   The court asked the prosecutor whether he agreed with
defense counsel’s reading of the writ, and the prosecutor
replied, “I guess I am not disputing the language of the writ. I
guess I would say that controls the Court.” The prosecutor also
elaborated on why the writ was issued. He explained that after
Castillo-Rodriguez posted bond on October 25, 2021, he was
released from State custody. So, when he was subsequently
taken into ICE custody, the State used the writ of habeas cor-
pus ad prosequendum to “tak[e] physical control over [him] so
that immigration doesn’t deport [him] from the United States
so that we can have him to finish the prosecution.”
   In an order entered June 22, 2022, the district court overruled
the motion nunc pro tunc, reasoning that Castillo-Rodriguez
was not seeking to correct a clerical error relating to jail credit,
but instead was seeking to modify the sentencing order as it
regarded the jail credit determination. 7 The court concluded
it was “without jurisdiction to modify its final order in the
manner requested by” Castillo-Rodriguez.
   Castillo-Rodriguez filed a notice of appeal within 30 days
of the sentencing order. We moved the appeal to our docket on
our own motion.

                 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
   The sole assignment of error is that the district court erred
in “failing to award Castillo-Rodriguez 215 days[’] credit for
time served.”

                 STANDARD OF REVIEW
   [1,2] Whether a defendant is entitled to credit for time
served and in what amount are questions of law, subject to
appellate review independent of the lower court. 8 Similarly,
7
    See In re Interest of Luz P. et al., 295 Neb. 814, 891 N.W.2d 651 (2017)
    (purpose of nunc pro tunc is to correct clerical or formal errors in order to
    make record correctly reflect judgment rendered by court).
8
    State v. Wines, 308 Neb. 468, 954 N.W.2d 893 (2021).
                                   - 771 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      313 Nebraska Reports
                      STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUEZ
                            Cite as 313 Neb. 763

statutory interpretation presents a question of law, which an
appellate court reviews independently of the lower court. 9

                             ANALYSIS
   On appeal, Castillo-Rodriguez argues he was entitled to 215
days of jail credit under § 47-503, while the State contends the
trial court correctly determined he was entitled to 94 days of
jail credit.
   In Nebraska, the calculation and application of credit for
time served is controlled by statute. 10 Different statutes govern
depending on whether the defendant is sentenced to jail or
prison. 11 Section 47-503 governs jail credit when the defend­
ant is sentenced to a term in county jail and provides in rel-
evant part:
         (1) Credit against a jail term shall be given to any per-
      son sentenced to a city or county jail for time spent in jail
      as a result of the criminal charge for which the jail term is
      imposed or as a result of conduct upon which such charge
      is based. Such credit shall include, but not be limited to,
      time spent in jail:
         (a) Prior to trial;
         (b) During trial;
         (c) Pending sentence;
         ....
         (2) Credit to any person sentenced to a city or county
      jail who is eligible for credit pursuant to subsection (1) of
      this section shall be set forth as part of the sentence at the
      time such sentence is imposed.
   [3-5] Section 47-503 requires a sentencing court to sep-
arately determine, state, and grant credit for time served,
and the court has no discretion to grant more or less credit
 9
     Id.
10
     State v. Harms, 304 Neb. 441, 934 N.W.2d 850 (2019).
11
     Id.
                                    - 772 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      313 Nebraska Reports
                      STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUEZ
                            Cite as 313 Neb. 763

than is established by the record. 12 Section 47-503 is intended
to ensure that defendants receive all the credit against their jail
sentence to which they are entitled—no less, and no more. 13
When a trial court grants a defendant more or less credit for
time served than the defendant actually served, that portion
of the pronouncement of sentence is erroneous and may be
corrected to reflect the accurate amount of credit as verified
objectively by the record. 14
   Here, the district court relied on information contained in
the presentence investigation report, as well as information
in the court record, to determine that Castillo-Rodriguez was
in jail as a result of the criminal charges in the Hall County
case for a total of 94 days. After independently reviewing
the record, we agree it establishes entitlement to 94 days of
jail credit.
   The record shows that Castillo-Rodriguez was in the Hall
County jail from his arrest on October 22, 2021, until he
bonded out on October 25—a period of 4 days. The record
further establishes that Castillo-Rodriguez was in the Hall
County jail under ICE custody beginning on October 26,
and he remained there until he was sentenced. Finally, the
record establishes that on February 24, 2022, the district court
revoked Castillo-Rodriguez’ bond in the Hall County case.
And the State does not dispute that once his bond was revoked,
Castillo-Rodriguez was in the Hall County jail as a result of the
Hall County case. The record therefore establishes both periods
of jail credit expressly found by the district court, for a total
jail credit of 94 days.
   But Castillo-Rodriguez relies on the writs of habeas cor-
pus ad prosequendum to argue he was also in jail as a result
of the Hall County case from the date the first writ was
issued through the date of his sentencing. In other words,
12
     See State v. Clark, 278 Neb. 557, 772 N.W.2d 559 (2009).
13
     Galvan, supra note 5.
14
     Id.
                                    - 773 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      313 Nebraska Reports
                      STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUEZ
                            Cite as 313 Neb. 763

Castillo-Rodriguez argues the district court was wrong to con-
clude that from October 26, 2021, to February 24, 2022, he
was in the Hall County jail as a result of ICE proceedings, not
as a result of the Hall County case. And Castillo-Rodriguez
argues that if this additional time period had been considered,
he would have been entitled to jail credit of 215 days, not 94.
   To address his argument, we first review the general nature
of writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. We then examine
the record to consider what, if anything, it established about
the writs issued in this case.
                   Writs of Habeas Corpus
                       ad Prosequendum
  [6,7] In State v. Williams, 15 we summarized the nature of a
writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, explaining:
     A writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is a common-
     law writ issued by a court, ordering the immediate
     removal of a prisoner from incarceration so that he can
     be brought to another jurisdiction to stand trial on charges
     for crimes committed within that jurisdiction. See Carbo
     v. United States, 364 U.S. 611, 81 S. Ct. 338, 5 L. Ed. 2d
     329 (1961); 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus § 2 (1968)
     (citing State v. Heisler, 95 Ariz. 353, 390 P.2d 846
     (1964)). In Nebraska, writs of habeas corpus ad prose-
     quendum have been and continue to be a traditional way
     of securing the presence of a prisoner located in another
     jurisdiction. See Hawk v. State, 151 Neb. 717, 39 N.W.2d
     561 (1949), cert. denied 339 U.S. 923, 70 S. Ct. 612, 94
     L. Ed. 1346 (1950). Federal prisons, such as the prison
     in Leavenworth, Kansas, are authorized to “consider a
     request made on behalf of a state or local court that an
     inmate be transferred to the physical custody of state or
     local agents pursuant to state writ of habeas corpus ad
     prosequendum . . . .” 28 C.F.R. § 527.30 (1997).
15
     Williams, supra note 3, 253 Neb. at 626-27, 573 N.W.2d at 111-12.
                                     - 774 -
              Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                       313 Nebraska Reports
                       STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUEZ
                             Cite as 313 Neb. 763

Williams also explained that a writ of habeas corpus ad prose-
quendum is not synonymous with a detainer agreement.
   The U.S. Supreme Court has also addressed writs of
habeas corpus ad prosequendum. A century ago, in Ponzi v.
Fessenden, 16 the Court recognized that a prisoner in federal
custody may be transported to a state court to face pending
charges. The Court explained:
         We live in the jurisdiction of two sovereignties, each
      having its own system of courts to declare and enforce
      its laws in common territory. It would be impossible for
      such courts to fulfill their respective functions without
      embarrassing conflict unless rules were adopted by them
      to avoid it. . . . The situation requires, therefore, not only
      definite rules fixing the powers of the courts in cases of
      jurisdiction over the same persons and things in actual lit-
      igation, but also a spirit of reciprocal comity and mutual
      assistance to promote due and orderly procedure. 17
Ponzi recognized the “chief rule which preserves our two
systems of courts from actual conflict of jurisdiction is that
the court which first takes the subject-matter of the litiga-
tion into its control, whether this be person or property, must
be permitted to exhaust its remedy.” 18 The Court in Ponzi
described this as a “‘principle of comity’” and observed that
“‘when one [sovereign] takes into its jurisdiction a specific
thing, that res is as much withdrawn from the judicial power
of the other, as if it had been carried physically into a dif-
ferent territorial sovereignty.’” 19 But the Court in Ponzi also
recognized that nothing prevents a jurisdiction from practicing
“the comity which the harmonious and effective operation of
16
     Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 42 S. Ct. 309, 66 L. Ed. 607 (1922).
17
     Id., 258 U.S. at 259.
18
     Id., 258 U.S. at 260.
19
     Id., 258 U.S. at 260, 261, quoting Covell v. Heyman, 111 U.S. 176, 4 S. Ct.
     355, 28 L. Ed. 390 (1884).
                                   - 775 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      313 Nebraska Reports
                      STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUEZ
                            Cite as 313 Neb. 763

both systems of courts requires,” 20 and thus, one sovereign hav-
ing “custody and jurisdiction” 21 of a prisoner may “consent” 22
to the transfer of the prisoner to another sovereign to be
tried, only insisting “on his being kept safely from escape or
from danger.” 23
   Here, the parties disagree about the legal impact the writs
of habeas corpus ad prosequendum had on Castillo-Rodriguez’
entitlement to jail credit under § 47-503. Castillo-Rodriguez
directs us to the broad language used in these writs, and he
argues it resulted in transferring his custody from ICE to Hall
County jail officials for the entire duration of the Hall County
case. The State disagrees and cites to an Indiana case 24 to argue
the “writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum did not change
that [Castillo-Rodriguez] was in ICE custody rather than the
custody of the State.” 25
   This court has not yet addressed the legal effect, if any, a
writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum has on a defendant’s
entitlement to jail credit under § 47-503. But this case does
not afford us a meaningful opportunity to explore that question
because, as we explain next, nothing in this record established
that ICE complied with either writ.
                No Evidence of Compliance
                         With Writs
   As we recognized in Williams, federal regulations govern
the procedure to be followed by federal authorities in respond-
ing to writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. 26 Under
20
     Ponzi, supra note 16, 258 U.S. at 263.
21
     Id., 258 U.S. at 265.
22
     Id., 258 U.S. at 266.
23
     Id.
24
     See Alvarez v. State, 147 N.E.3d 374 (Ind. App. 2020).
25
     Brief for appellee at 8.
26
     See Williams, supra note 3. See, also, 28 C.F.R. §§ 527.30 and 527.31
     (2021).
                                      - 776 -
              Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                       313 Nebraska Reports
                        STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUEZ
                              Cite as 313 Neb. 763

those regulations, the “[w]arden of the institution in which
the inmate is confined” is authorized to approve a transfer
of custody only when certain requirements are met. 27 Here,
Castillo-Rodriguez was confined in the Hall County jail, and
under Nebraska law, the sheriff is in charge of the county jail
and all persons confined therein. 28
   But nothing in the record established that ICE officials or
the Hall County sheriff ever received, approved, accepted,
or complied with the writs issued here. During oral argument
before this court, counsel for Castillo-Rodriguez acknowledged
there is nothing in the record establishing such facts, but he
argued it was the State’s burden to make such a record.
   Our cases hold that a sentencing court has no discretion to
grant more or less jail credit than is established by the record, 29
but we have not previously addressed who has the burden to
make that record. In cases like this one, where a presentence
investigation report was ordered and prepared, that report
typically identifies the number of days the defendant spent
in jail as a result of the charges for which he or she is being
sentenced, as it is a matter relevant to sentencing. 30 If the State
or the defendant wants to object to or supplement the informa-
tion in the presentence investigation report, either party has an
opportunity to do so during the sentencing hearing. 31
   Here, during the sentencing hearing, defense counsel took
issue with the jail credit information in the presentence inves-
tigation report and argued Castillo-Rodriguez was entitled
27
     28 C.F.R. § 527.31(c).
28
     See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-105 (Reissue 2021).
29
     Clark, supra note 12.
30
     See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2261 (Cum. Supp. 2022) (presentence
     investigation report shall include circumstances of crime and offender’s
     history of delinquency or criminality, physical and mental condition,
     family situation and background, economic status, education, occupation,
     personal habits, and any other relevant matters).
31
     See id. (court may allow fair opportunity for offender to provide additional
     information for court’s consideration).
                                    - 777 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      313 Nebraska Reports
                       STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUEZ
                             Cite as 313 Neb. 763

to additional credit. The State took the position that the jail
credit information in the report was correct. Neither party
adduced evidence to support their position.
   [8] We are aware that presentence investigation reports are
not prepared in every criminal case and that sometimes such
reports either fail to address jail credit or express uncertainty
as to the correct amount of jail credit. But since jail credit is
“an absolute and objective number that is established by the
record,” 32 and since no statute mandates who is responsible for
making that record, we think it is reasonable to require that
the party advocating for a specific jail credit calculation has
the burden to provide the sentencing court with a record that
establishes such calculation. 33
   Here, no evidence bearing on jail credit was adduced beyond
the information contained in the presentence investigation
report and otherwise appearing in the court record. The court
record showed that writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum
were issued and filed, but it did not establish that ICE officials
or the Hall County sheriff ever authorized or agreed to a trans-
fer of custody pursuant to the writs. Indeed, statements made
by defense counsel during sentencing indicate that Castillo-
Rodriguez’ federal immigration case continued to proceed dur-
ing the pendency of the Hall County case.
   In some cases, it may be reasonable to infer that a transfer
of custody from one sovereign to another was approved or
authorized in response to a writ of habeas corpus ad prose-
quendum because the defendant was physically transported
to a different jurisdiction or detention facility. But no such
inference is appropriate here, because Castillo-Rodriguez was
detained in the Hall County jail both before and after the
writs were issued. The jail logs would likely have shown
whether, and if so when, custody of Castillo-Rodriguez was
32
     See Clark, supra note 12, 278 Neb. at 562, 772 N.W.2d at 563.
33
     Cf. People v. Fransua, 457 P.3d 64 (Colo. App. 2016) (defendant claiming
     entitlement to credit for time served bears burden of proof on issue).
                                     - 778 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      313 Nebraska Reports
                       STATE V. CASTILLO-RODRIGUEZ
                             Cite as 313 Neb. 763

transferred from ICE to Hall County jail officials pursuant to
the writs, but no such evidence was adduced.
   The mere issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequen-
dum does not establish compliance with the writ by the sov-
ereign having custody. And since our record contains nothing
to objectively establish compliance with the writs issued here,
an opinion addressing the legal impact of those writs would be
merely advisory. It is generally not the function of appellate
courts to render advisory opinions, 34 so the impact, if any, that
a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum has on entitlement to
jail credit under § 47-503 is a matter we leave for another day
and a different record.
   On this record, we find no error in the district court’s deter-
mination that Castillo-Rodriguez was entitled to 94 days of
jail credit.
                       CONCLUSION
   The amount of jail credit to which a defendant is entitled
under § 47-503 presents a question of law to be determined
from the record presented to the district court. 35 On this record,
the district court did not err in determining that Castillo-
Rodriguez was entitled to 94 days of jail credit. We affirm the
judgment and sentences of the district court.
                                                      Affirmed.
34
     See, State v. Molina, 271 Neb. 488, 713 N.W.2d 412 (2006); State v. Rust,
     223 Neb. 150, 388 N.W.2d 483 (1986)
35
     See Clark, supra note 12.