This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was involved in two separate criminal cases. In the first case, he was convicted of unlawful taking of a motor vehicle and received a deferred sentence. In the second case, he pleaded no contest to theft of a credit card and larceny, receiving a suspended sentence with probation. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively. The Defendant repeatedly violated the terms of his probation and parole, leading to multiple revocations and incarcerations (paras 3-13).
Procedural History
- District Court, November 25, 2002: The court revoked the deferred judgment in the first case, entered judgment, and placed the Defendant on probation. In the second case, the court imposed a suspended sentence and probation (paras 6-7).
- District Court, May 19, 2003: The court revoked the Defendant's probation in the first case and committed him to incarceration (para 8).
- District Court, February 7, 2005: The Defendant's parole in the first case was revoked following a violation, and he was reincarcerated (para 11).
- District Court, September 20, 2005: The court revoked the Defendant's probation in the second case and imposed a new sentence (para 15).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his probation in the second case because the probationary period had expired. He contended that Section 31-20-5(B) only applies to single sentences and does not toll probation in cases involving multiple sentences. He also challenged the denial of credit for time served, the habitual-offender enhancement, and the admissibility of certain evidence (paras 13-14, 29, 35-41).
- Appellee (State): Asserted that the Defendant's failure to complete parole in the first case tolled the probationary period in the second case, extending the court's jurisdiction. The State also argued that the Defendant was not entitled to credit for time served while he was a fugitive and that the habitual-offender enhancement was valid under the plea agreement (paras 14-15, 29, 35).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court have jurisdiction to revoke the Defendant's probation in the second case?
- Does Section 31-20-5(B) apply to cases involving multiple sentences?
- Was the Defendant entitled to credit for time served during the period he was alleged to be a fugitive?
- Was the habitual-offender enhancement valid?
- Were the evidentiary rulings of the district court proper?
Disposition
- The district court's revocation of the Defendant's probation in the second case was affirmed.
- The denial of credit for time served during the period the Defendant was alleged to be a fugitive was reversed (paras 45-46).
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Sutin CJ. and Bustamante J. concurring):
Jurisdiction and Application of Section 31-20-5(B): The court held that Section 31-20-5(B) applies to both single and multiple sentences. The statute's principle—that a defendant receives credit for probation only while compliant with parole—applies regardless of whether the sentences arise from one or multiple cases. The Defendant's parole violation in the first case tolled the probationary period in the second case, and the district court retained jurisdiction to revoke probation (paras 17-28).
Credit for Time Served: The court found that the State failed to prove the Defendant was a fugitive during the period in question. There was no evidence that the State attempted to serve the warrant or that the Defendant's location was unknown. As a result, the Defendant was entitled to credit for this time (paras 29-34).
Habitual-Offender Enhancement: The court upheld the enhancement, noting that the Defendant had agreed to it in his plea agreement. The enhancement did not violate double jeopardy principles (para 35).
Evidentiary Rulings: The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the challenged evidence. The documents were relevant to calculating the probationary period, and sufficient foundation was established. The Defendant's due process rights were not violated (paras 36-41).
Other Arguments: The court rejected the Defendant's claims of double jeopardy, improper findings, and prosecutorial misconduct, finding them unsupported by the record or legal principles (paras 42-44).