State v. Arden, C5-87-2186
| Decision Date | 13 May 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. C5-87-2186,C5-87-2186 |
| Citation | 424 N.W.2d 293 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Dorman Richard ARDEN, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Prison inmate, who was sentenced to a concurrent sentence pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines for making terroristic threats in a letter written from prison, is entitled to receive credit against the sentence for time spent in confinement in prison from the date of the issuance of the complaint and arrest warrant to the date of sentence.
C. Paul Jones, State Public Defender, Cathryn Y. Middlebrook, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, St. Paul, Gary Fridell, Stephen N. Betcher, Red Wing, for respondent.
Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.
This appeal raises the issue of the extent to which a prison inmate, who was sentenced to a concurrent sentence pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines for making terroristic threats in a letter written from prison to his former wife, is entitled to receive "jail credit" against the sentence for time spent in confinement in prison before being convicted and sentenced for the current offense. The court of appeals, in an unpublished decision, held that the defendant is entitled to credit from April 27, 1987, the original trial date, to the date of sentencing, August 14, 1987. State v. Arden, No. C5-87-2186, slip op. (Minn.App. March 22, 1988) Relying on State v. Dulski, 363 N.W.2d 307 (Minn.1985), we hold that the defendant is entitled to credit beginning with January 14, 1987, the date of the issuance of the complaint and arrest warrant.
In 1984 defendant was convicted of attempted second-degree murder for stabbing his brother and was sentenced to 66.5 months in prison. While in prison defendant has twice been convicted of terroristic threats, once in 1986 and once in 1987, for mailing letters containing threats relating to his ex-wife and his brother. Defendant received the presumptive sentence for both offenses, 21 months concurrent for the 1986 offense (based on a criminal history score of 3) and 25 months concurrent for the 1987 offense (based on a criminal history score of 4). The credit issue which we decide in this appeal arises in connection with the second of these two terroristic threats convictions.
Defendant's ex-wife received the letter in question on January 7, 1987, and defendant was formally charged and an arrest warrant was issued on January 14, 1987. The case was originally set for trial on April 27, 1987, but, because of a continuance requested by the prosecution, trial was not held until later. The prosecutor and defense counsel agreed at the time of the continuance that defendant would receive jail credit "from April 27, 1987 to sentencing in addition to any other jail credit he is entitled to receive from arrest to April 27, 1987." We of course do not decide the hypothetical question whether there were grounds for a durational departure or a departure with respect to consecutive sentence. Suffice it to say, the trial court imposed the presumptive sentence of 25 months concurrent and awarded defendant credit only from April 27. Defendant argues that, given the imposition of a concurrent sentence pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines, he is entitled to credit from January 14, the date of the complaint and arrest warrant. We agree.
The leading case dealing with jail credit against concurrent sentences where the State of Minnesota is a party to both of the criminal charges is State v. Dulski, 363 N.W.2d 307 (Minn.1985), a case which dealt with the issue in a slightly different context from that of this case. Under Dulski, in a case dealing with jail credit against concurrent Guidelines sentences when the State of Minnesota is a party to both criminal charges the court should (a) ensure that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Radunz, No. A05-2564 (Minn. App. 4/3/2007), A05-2564.
...or things that are irrelevant such as whether the defendant pleads guilty or insists on his right to a trial." State v. Arden, 424 N.W.2d 293, 294 (Minn. 1988). Credit should be granted based on prosecutorial manipulation when a prosecutor delays filing new charges until the defendant posts......
-
State v. Schmidt, No. A09-0237 (Minn. App. 3/2/2010)
...29 (Minn. 1990); State v. Folley, 438 N.W.2d 372, 374 (Minn. 1989); State v. Hott, 426 N.W.2d 423, 4249-25 (Minn. 1988); State v. Arden, 424 N.W.2d 293, 294 (Minn. 1988); State v. Dulski, 363 N.W.2d 307, 310 (Minn. 1985). But for cases involving jail credit for time spent in another state, ......
-
State v. Clarkin, Nos. A10–1286
...State v. Weber, 470 N.W.2d 112, 114 (Minn.1991) (discussing the application of jail credit to security facilities); State v. Arden, 424 N.W.2d 293, 294–95 (Minn.1988) (holding that jail credit accrues from the date the complaint is filed, not when the offender is sentenced). Instead, we hav......
-
State v. Johnson
...credit for time spent in prison between the issuance of the terroristic threats complaint and the date of sentencing. State v. Arden, 424 N.W.2d 293, 294-95 (Minn.1988). Johnson argues that under Asfaha his confinement in connection with the terroristic threat charges was spent at the funct......