This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).






State of Minnesota,


Allan Lee Nordin,


Filed May 20, 2003


Hudson, Judge


Mille Lacs County District Court

File No. K8010682


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


Janelle P. Kendall, Mille Lacs County Attorney, Lotte R. Hansen, Assistant County Attorney, Courthouse Square, 525 Second Street Southeast, Milaca, MN 56353 (for respondent)


John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Suzanne M. Senecal-Hill, Assistant Public Defender, 2221 University Avenue Southeast, Suite 425, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)


            Considered and decided by Hudson, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Minge, Judge.


U N P U B L I S H E D  O P I N I O N



            Appellant challenges the district court’s refusal to grant an additional award of jail credit for the period of time he spent incarcerated, serving sentences for other offenses prior to imposition of the sentence in the instant proceedings.  Because we determine that the district court properly concluded that appellant is not entitled to additional jail credit, we affirm.



Appellant, a 44-year-old male, challenges the district court’s denial of his request for 62 days of additional jail credit following his tenth driving-while-impaired (DWI) conviction; his license has been cancelled as inimical to public safety since November 26, 1998.

            The facts in this case are undisputed.  Appellant was arrested on June 26, 2001, in Mille Lacs County and charged with DWI, test refusal, driving after cancellation, and open bottle possession.  Following his guilty plea to the DWI and driving-after-cancellation charges, the district court sentenced him to two consecutive 365-day terms and stayed all but 180 days on the second sentence.  The district court ordered appellant to serve his Mille Lacs County sentences consecutive to another sentence he was then serving in Anoka County.  The district court denied appellant’s request for a holiday furlough.  After appellant finished his Anoka sentence on December 18, 2001, the Anoka County jailer allowed him to go home, in violation of the Mille Lacs County district court’s order.  Because of this and other probation violations, the district court revoked the stay.  The district court credited him with 14 days of jail credit for time served from June 26, 2001, to July 2, 2001, and from March 21, 2002, to March 27, 2002.  Time served from December 12, 2001, to December 18, 2001, was not credited because it was the remainder of another sentence.  The Mille Lacs County sentences were executed consecutive to each other, and to other sentences imposed. 

On August 16, 2002, appellant filed a motion requesting jail credit and the district court denied the motion.  Specifically, on August 29, 2002, the district court held

1.  The defendant’s request for an additional 62 days of credit is DENIED because of the consecutive nature of defendant’s sentences.  On all related files, Defendant was properly given credit for 93 days against his aggregate, 910-day sentence.


This appeal followed.



            Appellant contends that he is entitled to additional jail credit for time served on other sentences while awaiting sentencing for the instant offense.  We disagree.

Rule 27.03 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure allows for modification of unlawful sentences:

The court at any time may correct a sentence not authorized by law.  The court may at any time modify a sentence during either a stay of imposition or stay of execution except that the court may not increase the period of confinement.


Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9.  That rule also provides, in relevant part, that the court must

[A]ssure that the record accurately reflects all time spent in custody in connection with the offense or behavioral incident for which sentence is imposed.  Such time shall be automatically deducted from the sentence and the term of imprisonment including the time spent in custody as a condition of probation from a prior stay of imposition or execution of sentence.


Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 4(B).  The court applies jail credit to each sentence of multiple concurrent terms.  State v. Patricelli, 357 N.W.2d 89, 94 (Minn. 1984).  But in cases of consecutive sentences, jail credit applies to only the first of multiple sentences, because to do otherwise would be to award a defendant “double credit” and transform consecutive sentences to concurrent ones.  State v. Cameron, 603 N.W.2d 847, 848 (Minn. App. 1999).  The only time jail credit may apply to each consecutive sentence is in cases of multiple sentences of life imprisonment.  See, e.g., State v. Brom, 463 N.W.2d 758, 765-66 (Minn. 1990).

            Here appellant claims he is entitled to 62 additional days of jail credit because he spent 62 days incarcerated between his arrest and the ultimate imposition of his full sentence.  He argues for jail credit that would include time spent in jail for previous offenses.  For instance, the time appellant served in Anoka County Correctional Facility, from October 31, 2001, to December 12, 2001, was for a separate sentence.  Appellant’s sentences in the current proceedings were to run consecutive to any other sentences.  To allow appellant credit for time served on other sentences would give him double credit.  See Effinger v. State, 380 N.W.2d 483, 489 (Minn. 1986) (stating that to allow double credit would defeat purpose of consecutive sentencing).

            Furthermore, the Weber case relied on by appellant concerned concurrent sentencing, not consecutive sentencing.  See State v. Weber, 470 N.W.2d 112, 114-15 (Minn. 1991).  In cases of concurrent sentencing, allowing credit for time served is proper for each concurrent sentence.  Id.  But appellant’s sentences were consecutive to each other and to every other sentence imposed.  And a defendant is only credited once for jail credit with respect to consecutive sentencing.  Cameron, 603 N.W.2d at 848.  Because the district court properly determined that crediting appellant with additional jail time for time served on other sentences would result in double credit, we affirm its order.