This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D.C.
Filed May 29, 2007
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 238365/27J301069514
Leonardo Castro, Hennepin County Public Defender, Peter W. Gorman, Assistant Public Defender, 317 Second Avenue South, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55401 (for appellant D.C.)
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, 1800
Michael O. Freeman,
Considered and decided by Stoneburner, Presiding Judge; Dietzen, Judge; and Worke, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
On appeal from an order denying jail credit, appellant argues that the district court erred when it failed to award him jail credit for the 511 days he spent at the Indiana Development Training Center (IDTC). Because we conclude that IDTC is not the functional equivalent of a jail, workhouse, or other correctional facility, we affirm.
D E C I S I O N
D.C. argues that the district court erred in failing to grant him jail credit
for the time he spent at the Indiana Development Training Center (IDTC). “The granting of jail credit is not
discretionary with the [district] court.”
State v. Parr, 414 N.W.2d 776,
778 (Minn. App. 1987), review denied
(Minn. Jan. 15, 1988). “Awards of jail
credit are governed by principles of fairness and equity and must be determined
on a case-by-case basis.” State v. Arend, 648 N.W.2d 746, 748 (
“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.’” State
v. Bradley, 629 N.W.2d 462, 464 (Minn. App. 2001) (quoting Minn. R. Crim.
P. 27.03, subd. 4(B)), review denied
Fairness and equity require that
jail credit be granted when a residential-treatment facility is the functional
equivalent of a jail, workhouse, or other correctional facility. Asfaha
v. State, 665 N.W.2d 523, 528 (
In Asfaha, the supreme court concluded that the
Likewise, in Razmyslowski, this court concluded that the Intensive Treatment
Program for Sexual Aggressives (ITPSA) at the Minnesota Security Hospital was
substantially similar to those at the Lakeview unit at the Bar-None facility,
and therefore was also the functional equivalent of a jail, workhouse, or
correctional facility. Razmyslowski, 668 N.W.2d at 684. This conclusion was based on the fact that
ITPSA has a security fence surrounding the facility, there is a central control
center that manages the electronic locks on the doors, the facility is entered
through a secured gate or sally port door, both the exterior and interior of
the facility are monitored continuously by surveillance cameras, there are bars
on the windows, the rooms are not locked but monitored on a regular basis, the
unit is staffed during the day with a minimum of three or four security staff
and one registered nurse, patients are not free to roam the building or grounds
without a staff person or “buddy,” patients are subjected to frequent pat-down
searches as well as room searches, patients are transported outside the unit in
mechanical restraints, and there is an escape procedure for the unit.
While IDTC does share some minor similarities with the Lakeview unit at the Bar-None facility and ITPSA, the secure unit at IDTC is not the functional equivalent of a jail, workhouse, or other correctional facilities. At IDTC, the locked doors are manually opened with a key by staff members rather than operated electronically by a central control booth operator. The unit does not have security guards, the windows are shatter-proof, and there are no bars on them. The unit has a fenced recreation area, but the fences are wooden privacy fences rather than security fences, and there is no perimeter security fence. There are surveillance cameras in the unit but they are not monitored continuously. Residents of the unit can also earn privileges such as off-ground activities. During his stay, appellant was allowed to go to the movies, bowling, and an event at Indianapolis Hill. He was also permitted a home visit wherein he flew home unescorted. Based on the record, the district court did not err by finding that the restrictions imposed by IDTC were not the functional equivalent of those imposed at a jail, workhouse, or other correctional facility.