This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Dustin James Anderson,
Itasca County District Court
File No. K7-02-718
John M. Stuart, State Public
Defender, Cathryn Middlebrook, Assistant State Public Defender,
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; and
John J. Muhar,
Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Schumacher, Judge; and Wright, Judge.
challenges the district court’s denial of custody credit toward his
April 3, 2002, appellant Dustin Anderson pleaded guilty to third-degree
burglary and receiving stolen property in connection with a series of cabin
burglaries in Itasca County, Minnesota.
The district court stayed the imposition of the sentence, placed
In September 2003, Anderson was charged with forgery in a Wisconsin district court. After pleading guilty, Anderson was sentenced to nine months in custody to be served concurrently “to any sentence currently serving.” The Wisconsin court permitted Anderson to serve the last 60 days of his sentence in a halfway house “if arrangements [could] be made.”
January 12, 2004, while Anderson was serving the Wisconsin sentence, Itasca
County authorities placed a hold on Anderson for violating the conditions of his
probation by committing the Wisconsin offense.
argues that he is entitled to custody credit for time served in Wisconsin from
January 12, 2004, the date that Minnesota authorities placed a hold on him,
until August 23, 2004, the date that he finished serving his Wisconsin
sentence. Custody credit is awarded for
“all time spent in custody in connection with the offense or behavioral
incident for which [the] sentence is imposed.”
defendant ordinarily is not entitled to custody credit toward his Minnesota
sentence for the period the defendant is detained outside Minnesota for
committing an out-of-state offense. State ex rel. Linehan v. Wood, 397
N.W.2d 341, 342 (
distinction exists between intrajurisdictional and interjurisdictional custody-credit
cases. See State v. Folley, 438 N.W.2d 372, 374 (Minn. 1989) (noting that only
“where . . . Minnesota is a party to both charges” should district court adopt
broader equitable approach); Willis,
376 N.W.2d at 429 n.2 (distinguishing between Brown, which controls interjurisdictional cases, and State v. Dulski, 363 N.W.2d 307 (
Here, because Anderson is seeking custody credit toward his Minnesota sentence for time served in Wisconsin, we follow the traditional interjurisdictional rule set forth in Willis and Brown. See Linehan, 397 N.W.2d at 342 (reversing court of appeals when it relied on Dulski rather than Willis and Brown in an interjurisdictional case). Anderson pleaded guilty to check forgery in Wisconsin and began serving a custodial sentence for this offense in December 2003. On January 12, 2004, Minnesota authorities placed a hold on Anderson for allegedly violating several probation conditions imposed on a Minnesota conviction. Anderson completed serving his sentence for the Wisconsin forgery offense on August 23, 2004, and seeks custody credit toward the Minnesota offense for the period during which he was incarcerated in Wisconsin after the Minnesota hold was established. Indeed, once Minnesota authorities placed a hold on Anderson, he was detained because of both the Wisconsin sentence and the Minnesota hold. But Anderson is not entitled to custody credit for this period because he was not detained in Wisconsin solelyin connection with the Minnesota hold. See Willis, 376 N.W.2d at 428-29.
Accordingly, the district court properly denied Anderson’s motion for custody credit for the period after the custody hold during which he also was incarcerated on the Wisconsin offense. And the district court correctly gave Anderson custody credit for the period from August 23 to September 7, during which he was detained in Wisconsin solely because of the Minnesota hold.
Anderson alternatively argues that he is entitled to custody credit for the last 60 days of his Wisconsin incarceration because, but for the Minnesota hold, he would have been released to a halfway house for this two-month period. A defendant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to custody credit for a specific period. Willis, 376 N.W.2d at 428 n.1. We agree with the district court’s determination that Anderson has failed to demonstrate that, but for the Minnesota hold, he would have been released to a halfway house. At the sentencing on the Wisconsin offense, the district court stated that the last 60 days of Anderson’s sentence could be served in a halfway house “if arrangements [could] be made.” But the record is devoid of any attempt by Anderson to arrange for release to a halfway house or to otherwise demonstrate his eligibility.
Anderson claims that he failed to make arrangements because his probation officer informed him that the halfway house was no longer an option in light of the Minnesota hold. Indeed, Anderson may have believed that he was incarcerated for those 60 days solely because of the Minnesota hold. But absent evidence establishing that, but for the Minnesota hold, Anderson would have been admitted to a halfway house, we cannot presume that the sole reason for Anderson’s incarceration was the Minnesota hold rather than a lack of planning, a lack of available space, or an independent decision by Anderson not to pursue the halfway-house alternative. Accordingly, Anderson has not met his burden of demonstrating that he is entitled to custody credit for this 60-day period.
 The district court actually credited