People v. Massey, 84CA0741
Decision Date | 16 May 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 84CA0741,84CA0741 |
Citation | 707 P.2d 1038 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald MASSEY, Defendant-Appellant. . III |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Peter J. Stapp, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Martin J. Gerra, III, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant, Donald Massey, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for correction of illegal sentence under Crim. P. 35(a). After pleading guilty to criminal impersonation from charges arising in Pitkin County, defendant was granted probation. His probation was later revoked and he was sentenced to eighteen months with the Department of Corrections being given credit for 78 days of presentence confinement. Defendant contends he is entitled to an additional 181 days of presentence confinement credit for time spent in jail between the date of his arrest and the date on which he was granted probation. We reverse and remand with directions.
Defendant was arrested in Mesa County on September 15, 1982, on at least two warrants, one arising from Pitkin County and one from Mesa County. Defendant remained incarcerated on both warrants for a total of 181 days in either the Mesa County jail or the Pitkin County jail until March 14, 1983. On that date, defendant pled guilty in Pitkin County to criminal impersonation and he was sentenced to two years of probation conditioned on his completion of a residency and treatment program at the Larimer County Community Corrections Facility.
On March 9, 1983, defendant pled guilty to felony theft charges arising in Mesa County. The Mesa County District Court also placed defendant on probation, with conditions, for a period of two years. This sentence to probation was ordered to run concurrently with the Pitkin County sentence.
In November 1983, defendant was arrested and incarcerated for violating the terms of his Pitkin County probation and spent one day in jail before he was released after posting bond. A hearing was held and on December 19, 1983, defendant's probation was revoked. He remained in jail until March 5, 1984, when he was sentenced to the Department of Corrections to serve a term of eighteen months. The mittimus, issued on March 8, 1984, reflected that defendant was entitled to 78 days of presentence confinement for the time spent in the Pitkin County jail, after his arrest for the probation violation, from December 19, 1983, through March 5, 1984.
Simultaneously with defendant's arrest for the Pitkin County probation violation, he was also arrested for violating the conditions of his Mesa County probation. His probation in that county was likewise revoked. On March 19, 1984, the Mesa County District Court imposed a sentence of twenty-seven months to run concurrently with the Pitkin County sentence and found that the defendant was entitled to 263 days of presentence confinement credit.
Subsequently, defendant filed the motion at issue here requesting additional credit against his Pitkin County sentence for the 181 days he spent in jail between the date of his initial arrest and the date when he was granted probation. A hearing was held on the motion wherein the defense presented uncontradicted evidence that defendant had been arrested September 15, 1982, on the Pitkin County charges as well as the Mesa County charges and that defendant had remained incarcerated until he was granted probation on March 14, 1983.
The trial court, nevertheless, denied defendant any credit for this period of confinement. The trial court stated:
Presentence confinement credit is to be given for the actual time spent in custody as a result of the charge for which a sentence to the Department of Corrections is imposed, or for the total time spent in confinement as a result of the conduct upon which the charge is based. Torand v. People, 698 P.2d 797 (Colo.1985); Schubert v. People, 698 P.2d 788 (Colo.1985); People v. Myles, 702 P.2d 292 (Colo.App.1985).
Section 16-11-306, C.R.S. (1984 Cum.Supp.) mandates that credit be given for all...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Massey v. People
...Sol. Gen., Peter J. Stapp, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent. ERICKSON, Justice. We granted certiorari to review People v. Massey, 707 P.2d 1038 (Colo.App.1985), in which the court of appeals held that presentence confinement credit could not be applied to two concurrent sentences im......