State v. Willis, CX-84-1231
| Decision Date | 15 November 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. CX-84-1231,CX-84-1231 |
| Citation | 376 N.W.2d 427 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Samuel Kenneth WILLIS, Petitioner, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
A defendant charged with a crime in Minnesota and held in custody in another state at request of Minnesota authorities is not entitled to credit against a Minnesota sentence for time in custody in the other state unless the Minnesota charge was the sole reason for the detention by the other state.
C. Paul Jones, Minn. State Public Defender, Steven P. Russett, Asst. State Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Minn. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Thomas L. Johnson, Hennepin County Atty., Vernon E. Bergstrom, Anne E. Peek, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.
Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, Minn.Stat. Sec. 609.19 (1982), and assault in the second degree, Minn.Stat. Sec. 609.222 (1982), and was sentenced to serve concurrent terms of 120 and 60 months. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction over defendant's challenges to: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) the admission of defendant's prior convictions for impeachment purposes; (3) the suppression of the murder victim's prior arrests and convictions; and (4) the trial court's denial of jail credit. We granted defendant's petition for further review and now upon the grounds stated by the Court of Appeals affirm its determination on the issues of sufficiency of evidence, the admission of prior convictions, and the suppression of evidence of the murder victim's prior arrests and convictions. However, we reverse the holding of the Court of Appeals that defendant is not entitled to jail credit. We therefore affirm defendant's conviction and modify his sentence.
The events leading to the Minnesota convictions are set forth in State v. Willis, 362 N.W.2d 382 (Minn.App.1985). Immediately after the Minnesota offenses occurred, appellant fled to Illinois where, on November 22, 1982, he was arrested on charges unrelated to the Minnesota offenses. He failed to post bail and remained in custody. On December 20, 1982, a complaint and warrant were filed in Hennepin County, Minnesota, charging appellant with second-degree murder. Minnesota requested that he be extradited and the Governor of Illinois issued a rendition warrant on February 3, 1983, but appellant continued in Illinois detention pending disposition of the Illinois charges. On December 28, 1983, appellant was acquitted of the Illinois charges and on January 18, 1984, he was formally extradited to Minnesota.
At sentencing after being convicted in Minnesota, defendant requested credit against the Minnesota sentences for time he was in custody in Illinois. The sentencing court denied that request.
Defendant's contention is that he is entitled to jail credit for time he was incarcerated in Illinois prior to his return to Minnesota for trial. Our task is to determine what incarceration time of Willis in Illinois was "in connection with the offense or behavioral incident for which sentence is imposed" in Minnesota. State v. Mattson, 376 N.W.2d 413, 415 (Minn.1985). That incarceration time can be readily divided into three distinct periods:
(1) The time from his arrest in Illinois on November 22, 1982, on Illinois charges unrelated to the Minnesota offenses, until such time as the Minnesota request for his extradition was brought to the attention of Illinois officials who then held defendant for Minnesota. 1
(2) The date from which defendant was first held for Minnesota to December 28, 1983, when he was acquitted of the Illinois charges.
(3) The time of incarceration from December 28, 1983, to January 18, 1984, when he was released to Minnesota authorities.
Clearly, the incarceration in time period 1 was not in connection with the offenses for which defendant was sentenced in Minnesota, and thus defendant is not entitled to any credit for that time against his Minnesota sentence.
It is equally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joyner, In re
...for out-of-state or federal incarceration. (E.g., State v. Horrisberger (Ariz.App.1982) 133 Ariz. 569, 653 P.2d 26; State v. Willis (Minn.1985) 376 N.W.2d 427, 428-429; Peterson v. N.Y.S. Dept. of Correctional Ser. (1984) 100 App.Div.2d 73, 473 N.Y.S.2d 473, 474.) Cases supporting a denial ......
-
Breeden v. New Jersey Dept. of Corrections
...so at least partially in its own interest, else it would release the prisoner outright to the other jurisdiction. See State v. Willis, 376 N.W.2d 427, 428 (Minn.1985) (finding that prisoner "was held both" on Illinois charges and Minnesota hold, for charges pending against him there, during......
-
State v. Radunz, No. A05-2564 (Minn. App. 4/3/2007), A05-2564.
...Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 4(B). The defendant has the burden of establishing entitlement to jail credit. State v. Willis, 376 N.W.2d 427, 428 n.1 (Minn. 1985). Time served in other states is properly credited toward a Minnesota sentence when the incarceration was "solely in connection ......
-
State v. Roy
..., 376 N.W.2d 413, 416 (Minn. 1985) ; see also State ex rel. Linehan v. Wood , 397 N.W.2d 341, 342 (Minn. 1986) ; State v. Willis , 376 N.W.2d 427, 428–29 (Minn. 1985) ; State v. Brown , 348 N.W.2d 743, 748 (Minn. 1984). Roy argues that, on these facts, we should apply our intrajurisdictiona......