This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2000).







In the Matter of the Welfare of:

Wyatt Owen Luke Jackson.



Filed December 4, 2001

Affirmed as modified

Halbrooks, Judge


Olmsted County District Court

File No. J39951298



Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 525 Park Street, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55103; and


Raymond F. Schmitz, Olmsted County Attorney, Karen A. Arthurs, Assistant County Attorney, Olmsted County Government Center, 151 Fourth Street SE, Rochester, MN 55904 (for respondent)


John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Marie L. Wolf, Assistant Public Defender, 2829 University Avenue SE, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)




            Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Klaphake, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N


            Appellant challenges the trial court’s order denying him jail credit for the time he spent in the Restore program of the Many Rivers Regional Juvenile Center as a condition of his extended-jurisdiction juvenile probation.  Because the Restore program is a residential treatment facility rather than a correctional facility, we affirm.  But we modify the district court’s order to credit appellant for the eight days he spent in detention in January 2000.


            On June 23, 1999, appellant Wyatt Owen Luke Jackson, then age 16, was charged with first-degree aggravated robbery, a violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 609.245, subd. 1, 609.05 (1998).  On June 24, the district court ordered that appellant be held, pending disposition, in secure detention at the Many Rivers Juvenile Detention Facility, a division of the Many Rivers Regional Juvenile Center in Rochester.

On October 14, 1999, appellant pleaded guilty as an extended-jurisdiction juvenile (EJJ) pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 260.126 (1998).  The court sentenced appellant to 48 months in prison, but stayed commitment to the Commissioner of Corrections until appellant’s 21st birthday on the condition that he not violate the terms of his probation.  One condition of appellant’s probation was to successfully complete the Restore treatment program (Restore program), also a division of the Many Rivers Regional Juvenile Center.

Appellant remained in detention until he was transferred to the Restore program on October 25, 1999.  Appellant returned to Many Rivers detention facility for eight days in January 2000 for violating the terms of his home visit arrangement.  Following the eight days’ detention period, he was returned to the Restore program.  On June 4, 2000, appellant failed to return to the Restore program following a home visit.  Police found and arrested appellant on August 25, 2000.

The district court revoked appellant’s EJJ status and executed his sentence.  On appellant’s motion for jail credit, the court granted credit for time spent in Many Rivers detention facility, but denied credit for time spent in the Restore program.  On appeal, appellant argues that the district court erred by not giving him credit for the time he spent in the Restore program.


A defendant is entitled to jail credit for “all time spent in custody in connection with the offense or behavioral incident for which sentence is imposed.”  Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 4(B).  The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines provide that

[j]ail credit shall reflect time spent in confinement as a condition of a stayed sentence when the stay is later revoked and the offender is committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections.  Such credit is limited to time spent in jails, workhouses, and regional correctional facilities.


Minn. Sent. Guidelines III.C.3.  The commentary to this section of the guidelines specifically notes that “[c]redit should not be extended for time spent in residential treatment facilities.”  Minn. Sent. Guidelines cmt. III.C.04.  Although an offender may receive treatment either as part of confinement in a state correctional facility or as part of a residential treatment program, the sentencing guidelines only authorize jail credit for the correctional-facility treatment.  State v. Bradley, 629 N.W.2d 462, 465 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. Aug. 15, 2001).  The nature of the facility, rather than its level of security, is determinative.  State v. Peterson, 359 N.W.2d 708, 710 (Minn. App. 1984) (holding defendant who received treatment in a secure state hospital was not entitled to jail credit), review denied (Minn. Mar. 13, 1985). 

            Appellant bears the burden of showing that the Restore program is a jail, workhouse, or regional correctional facility, and not a treatment facility.  State v. Willis, 376 N.W.2d 427, 428 n.1 (Minn. 1985).

            Appellant argues that since the Restore program was located “within” the Many Rivers detention facility, he is entitled to jail credit for every day he spent in the Restore program.  But the record shows that Many Rivers detention facility and the Many Rivers Juvenile Treatment Center, in which the Restore program is located, are physically and administratively distinct parts of the Many Rivers Regional Juvenile Center, a public juvenile facility in Rochester.  After sentencing, appellant was physically transferred from detention to the Restore program, where he began treatment. 

The record is clear that the Restore program is a residential treatment center.  One of appellant’s “Progress Reports” from his time spent in the Restore program is captioned “Many Rivers Regional Treatment Center” and notes that “Campus School Programs include Many Rivers Juvenile Treatment Center [and] Many Rivers Detention Center.”  Appellant’s June 7, 2000 discharge summary from the Restore Unit is issued on “Many Rivers Treatment Center” letterhead.

The Restore program does not fit into any of the criteria of Minn. Sent. Guidelines III.C.3.  Appellant’s Restore program file contains a list of his “treatment goals” while in the program.  In the Restore program, appellant received socialization programming in the form of relationship building, self-management, and life-skills training.  He participated in treatment groups and one-on-one therapy.  He regularly left the premises to perform community-service work and for unsupervised home visits.  The Restore program is not within the Many Rivers detention facility such that the correctional function of the detention facility can be imputed to the Restore program and credit granted for time spent in treatment there. 

Appellant argues in the alternative that he deserves credit even if the court finds that the Restore program is a residential treatment program, because to deny him the credit for time in treatment, while granting it for time in confinement in the Many Rivers detention facility, violates his equal-protection rights.  Distinctions made between defendants for the purposes of determining jail-credit eligibility must be rationally related to a legitimate state purpose to withstand equal-protection review.  See McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263, 270, 93 S. Ct. 1055, 1059 (1973). 

But this court recently held that the distinction between residential treatment programs and correctional institutions for the purposes of calculating jail credit is rational and constitutionally permissible, due to the difference between treatment and jail:

[W]e conclude that residential treatment programs, although involving a restriction of liberty and commonly a condition of probation, are not punishment for the offense committed, but are an alternative to punishment.  Were jail credit granted for residential treatment, the punishment for identical offenses would be disparate.


Bradley, 629 N.W.2d at 466.

            Appellant was transferred from the Restore program to the Many Rivers detention facility for an eight-day period in January 2000, as punishment for violating his home-visit agreement.  Because appellant spent this time in confinement, the trial court’s order should be modified to grant appellant credit for this time.

Appellant has not met his burden of showing that, for the purpose of calculating jail credit, the Restore program is a jail, workhouse, or regional correctional facility.  Therefore, the district court did not err by denying appellant credit for the time he spent in the Restore program.  Further, denying appellant credit for time spent in treatment does not violate his equal-protection rights. 

Affirmed as modified.