People v. Etts, 85CA0262

Decision Date15 May 1986
Docket NumberNo. 85CA0262,85CA0262
Citation725 P.2d 73
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank ETTS, Defendant-Appellant. . I
CourtColorado Court of Appeals

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., David R. Little, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Martin J. Gerra, III, Linda A. Perkins Deputy State Public Defenders, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

PIERCE, Judge.

Defendant, Frank Etts, appeals from a denial of his Crim.P. 35 motion for correction of sentence in which he sought credit for 116 days of presentence confinement. We reverse and allow a partial credit.

Defendant was arrested in Adams County on September 10, 1983, and posted bail two days later. In mid-October 1983, he was arrested in Denver County and incarcerated there on Denver charges and also because of a hold order from Arapahoe County. Charges were also pending against defendant in Jefferson County.

On November 25, 1983, defendant was transported from Denver to Adams County for a scheduled preliminary hearing. Defendant, however, was granted a continuance of the preliminary hearing in order to allow him to obtain counsel. In addition, at the request of the surety, the trial court discharged defendant's bond. Defendant was thereafter transported back to jail in Denver County.

On January 30, 1984, defendant was sentenced in Adams County to 12 years and 3 years of incarceration, the sentences to run concurrently. Further, those sentences were ordered to run concurrently with a 10-year sentence that had been imposed on defendant in Denver, and two four-year-and-one-day sentences imposed in Jefferson and Arapahoe Counties.

At the time of defendant's sentencing in Adams County, he had already been sentenced in the other counties, and was awaiting transfer to the department of corrections. Defendant had been credited with 116 days for presentence confinement by Denver, Jefferson, and Arapahoe Counties. However, he was credited with only four days by the Adams County District Court.

On appeal, defendant seeks credit for his presentence confinement in Denver County from November 25, 1983, when the Adams County bond was discharged, through January 30, 1984, when Adams County imposed the 12-year concurrent sentence. We agree that defendant must receive credit for this time served.

Section 16-11-306, C.R.S. (1985 Cum.Supp.) requires that, without exception, credit for presentence confinement be given with respect to the transaction for which the defendant is to be sentenced. Schubert v. People, 698 P.2d 788 (Colo.1985); People v. Nealous, 703 P.2d 624 (Colo.App.1985). The transaction for which the defendant is to be sentenced need not be the exclusive cause of his confinement, but rather there must be a "substantial nexus between such charge or conduct, and the period of confinement for which credit is sought." Schubert v. People, supra.

A defendant is not entitled to duplicative credit for time served. Torand v. People, 698 P.2d 797 (Colo.1985); People v. Nealous, supra. However, in the case of concurrent sentences, as here, the period of presentence confinement should be credited against each sentence. See Schubert v. People, supra. Therefore, defendant will be assured of receiving full credit for his presentence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Johnson v. Riveland
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • September 2, 1988
    ...full credit against the total term of imprisonment." Schubert v. People, 698 P.2d 788, 795 (Colo.1985); see also People v. Etts, 725 P.2d 73, 74 (Colo.App.1986); People v. Middleton, 704 P.2d 326, 327 (Colo.App.1985); People v. Nealous, 703 P.2d 624, 625 (Colo.App.1985). The prohibition by ......
  • People v. Roy
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • September 23, 2010
    ...shorten his overall sentence, and the credit would be duplicative of the credit he received in Case No. 02CR1373. See People v. Etts, 725 P.2d 73, 74 (Colo.App.1986) (“[I]n the case of concurrent sentences ... the period of presentence confinement should be credited against each sentence.........
  • People v. Roy, Court of Appeals No. 08CA1204 (Colo. App. 6/10/2010)
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • June 10, 2010
    ...shorten his overall sentence, and the credit would be duplicative of the credit he received in Case No. 02CR1373. See People v. Etts, 725 P.2d 73, 74 (Colo. App. 1986) ("[I]n the case of concurrent sentences . . . the period of presentence confinement should be credited against each sentenc......
  • People v. Finley, Court of Appeals No. 03CA1907 (CO 2/9/2006)
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • February 9, 2006
    ...People, supra (citing Schubert v. People, 698 P.2d 788 (Colo. 1985)). A defendant is not entitled to duplicative credit. People v. Etts, 725 P.2d 73 (Colo. App. 1986). Here, the record does not support defendant's contention that he was being held in Georgia on the Colorado charges. Defenda......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT