Court Opinion

ID: 9627512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:46:57.578803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:46.391036
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
dissenting.
I cannot agree that “credit should be granted against the minimum and maximum term of each concurrent sentence.” Consequently, I must dissent.
*1390Recognizing that, in the instance of concurrent sentences, the end result is no different, I am firmly convinced that credit for presentence confinement should be given only once. Conceptually, awarding credit for presentence confinement on two different sentences is no different from awarding credit twice on one sentence. In Jones v. State, 771 P.2d 368, 373 (Wyo. 1989), we said, with respect to the latter situation, that “doubling of presentence incarceration credit is unjustified as well as unauthorized and constitutes an abuse of discretion by the sentencing court.” If pre-sentence confinement is to be awarded on each of two concurrent sentences, how is it to be awarded on five concurrent sentences? If it is awarded on each sentence, how can we avoid transferring the rule to consecutive sentences?
The correct rule has been articulated by the Florida Court of Appeals. That court said:
“ * * * [I]t is important to point out that a defendant will be given credit only once for the total time spent prior to sentencing; if he is sentenced on another charge by the same or another judge duplicate jail time credit cannot be given.” Lawrence v. State, 306 So.2d 561, 562 (Fla.App.1975) (emphasis in original).
Other courts have arrived at the same conclusion. Prichard v. State, 441 So.2d 1052 (Ala.Cr.App.1983); State v. Caffey, 445 S.W.2d 642 (Mo.1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 996, 90 S.Ct. 1138, 25 L.Ed.2d 405 (1970); Richardson v. State, 632 S.W.2d 13 (Mo.App.1982). Read carefully, the New Mexico cases are not contrary authority. See State v. Page, 100 N.M. 788, 676 P.2d 1353 (N.M.App.1984); State v. Ramzy, 98 N.M. 436, 649 P.2d 504 (N.M.App.1982).
In the case of concurrent sentences, it is not necessary that the defendant be given credit on both sentences to assure that it will be afforded if one of the sentences is reversed or vacated. The time served under the sentence that is reversed or vacated is legally referable to the remaining concurrent sentence or sentences. Ekberg v. United States, 167 F.2d 380 (1st Cir.1948). See 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1582 (1989). That time to be referred to the remaining sentence must include the time that was served presentence.
I am satisfied that the correct rule is that, in Wyoming, a defendant must be given credit for presentence confinement against both the minimum and maximum term, but that credit appropriately should be given only once. I dissent from the opinion of the court awarding double credit.