State v. Lopez, CR-86-0120-AP
| Decision Date | 30 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. CR-86-0120-AP,CR-86-0120-AP |
| Citation | 153 Ariz. 285,736 P.2d 369 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Jose Villegas LOPEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by William J. Schafer III and Janet Keating, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender by Edward F. McGee, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.
Jose Villegas Lopez entered a plea of guilty to first degree murder. In return, the state agreed not to seek the death penalty, to dismiss an armed robbery charge, and not to file certain other charges. He was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole for twenty-five years. He appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(3), A.R.S. §§ 13-4031, 4033.
Lopez was arrested on the charges on October 7, 1985, and remained in custody until he was sentenced on April 2, 1986. The trial judge gave him credit for 175 days of pre-sentence incarceration time, that being the amount shown in the pre-sentence report. No one questioned the accuracy of that computation in the trial court. On appeal, however, both sides agree the computation was incorrect. Lopez contends that he is entitled to 178 days credit, while the state contends he is entitled to 177 days credit. The one day difference comes about because Lopez counts the sentencing day as a day of pre-sentence incarceration and the state does not. We agree with the state.
Resolution of this dispute is governed by A.R.S. §§ 13-709(A) and (B). Subsection (A) provides, in pertinent part, "A sentence of imprisonment commences when sentence is imposed if the defendant is in custody...." Subsection (B) provides, "All time actually spent in custody pursuant to an offense until the prisoner is sentenced to imprisonment for such offense shall be credited against the term of imprisonment otherwise provided for by this chapter." Subsections (A) and (B) of A.R.S. § 13-709 are complementary and should be so construed. See, Gortarez v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc., 140 Ariz. 97, 103, 680 P.2d 807, 813 (1984); State v. Pena, 140 Ariz. 545, 550, 683 P.2d 744, 749 (App.1983), aff'd 140 Ariz. 544, 683 P.2d 743 (1984). The purpose of these subsections is to provide that each day of custody, whether pre-sentence or post-sentence, is credited toward the term of imprisonment. That purpose does not, however, require or permit a double credit for the sentencing day itself. Since Lopez was in custody, his sentence began, under Subsection (A), on his sentencing day. Where the sentencing day is the first day of the sentence under Subsection (A), it does not also count as the last day of pre-sentence credit under Subsection (B).
Division One of the court of appeals recently addressed an identical issue relative to calculation of pre-sentence credits. In State v. Hamilton, 153 Ariz. 244, 735 P.2d 854 (App.1987), the court arrived at the same conclusion that we now approve.
Defendant has raised no other issue on appeal. We have, however, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4035 and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ritch
...day of presentence custody, like each day of postsentence custody, be credited toward the term of imprisonment. State v. Lopez, 153 Ariz. 285, 285, 736 P.2d 369, 369 (1987); State v. Hamilton, 153 Ariz. 244, 245, 735 P.2d 854, 855 Appellant was initially held in custody at Adobe Mountain, a......
-
State v. Drew, 1 CA-CR 14-0451
...under A.R.S. § 13-712(A) that date does not also count for presentence credit under A.R.S. § 13-712(B). See State v. Lopez, 153 Ariz. 285, 285, 736 P.2d 369, 369 (1987) (interpreting A.R.S. § 13-709, which is now A.R.S. § 13-712). Applying these standards, Drew was entitled to 171 days of p......
-
State v. Lopez, CR-86-0155-AP
...to first degree murder and received a stipulated term of life imprisonment. On appeal, we affirmed his conviction. State v. Lopez, 153 Ariz. 285, 736 P.2d 369 (1987). Meanwhile, defendant's case proceeded to a jury trial. At the close of the state's case, defendant moved for judgment of acq......
-
State v. Whitlock
...for any partial day in custody, State v. Carnegie, 174 Ariz. 452, 454 (App. 1993), but no credit for the day of sentencing. State v. Lopez, 153 Ariz. 285, 285 (1987); accord A.R.S. § 13-712(B).¶32 At sentencing, without objection, Whitlock received 95 days' credit. Whitlock was first arrest......