This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).

 

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A04-2486

 

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Dustin James Anderson,
Appellant.

 

Filed August 9, 2005

Affirmed

Wright, Judge

 

Itasca County District Court

File No. K7-02-718

 

 

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Cathryn Middlebrook, Assistant State Public Defender, 2221 University Avenue Southeast, Suite 425, Minneapolis, MN  55414 (for appellant)

 

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN  55101; and

 

John J. Muhar, Itasca County Attorney, Todd S. Webb, Assistant County Attorney, Itasca County Courthouse, 123 Northeast Fourth Street, Grand Rapids, MN  55744 (for respondent)

 

            Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Schumacher, Judge; and Wright, Judge.

 

U N P U B L I S H E D  O P I N I O N

 

WRIGHT, Judge

 

Appellant challenges the district court’s denial of custody credit toward his Minnesota sentence for the time spent in custody in Wisconsin.  Appellant asserts that he is entitled to custody credit for the entire period of out-of-state incarceration after Minnesota authorities placed a hold on him.  Alternatively, appellant maintains that he is entitled to custody credit for the last 60 days of incarceration in Wisconsin because the Minnesota hold prevented his release to a halfway house.  We affirm.

FACTS

 

On 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 Anderson on probation for five years, and ordered him to serve 90 days in jail in addition to other conditions of probation imposed.  Anderson was released on July 4, 2002, after serving 60 days of his 90-day sentence. 

Three months later, Anderson admitted violating several conditions of his probation.  At the probation-violation hearing, the district court continued Anderson’s probation and ordered him to serve 45 days in the Itasca County jail.  Anderson was released on December 3, 2002, after serving 30 days of his 45-day sentence.

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.” 

On 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.  Anderson finished serving his Wisconsin sentence on August 23, 2004. 

Anderson was returned to Minnesota for a probation-violation hearing on September 7, 2004.  The district court revoked Anderson’s probation and executed a 13-month sentence.  Anderson sought custody credit for the period of January 12 to August 23, 2004, during which he was incarcerated in Wisconsin after Minnesota authorities placed a hold on him.  The district court denied Anderson’s request and ordered Anderson to receive custody credit for 90 days served in Itasca County, 30 days served in Wisconsin for the period attributable to the Minnesota probation violations, and 22 days served in Minnesota while awaiting the probation-revocation hearing on September 27, 2004.  Anderson filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court denied.  This appeal followed.

D E C I S I O N

 

Anderson 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.”  Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 4(B); see also Minn. Sent. Guidelines III.C.  The decision to grant custody credit is not discretionary with the district court.  State v. Hadgu, 681 N.W.2d 30, 32 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept. 21, 2004). 

A 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 (Minn. 1986).  Custody credit is granted if the out-of-state incarceration is “solely in connection” with the Minnesota offense.  State v. Willis, 376 N.W.2d 427, 428 (Minn. 1985) (holding that appellant was not entitled to custody credit for time spent in custody in Illinois until he was acquitted of Illinois charges and was held solely in connection with Minnesota offense); State v. Brown, 348 N.W.2d 743, 748 (Minn. 1984) (remanding to determine whether part of time in custody awaiting extradition to Minnesota was spent in connection with an offense committed outside Minnesota); State v. Parr, 414 N.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Minn. App. 1987) (reasoning that, because defendant was in custody as a result of New York offenses, he was not entitled to jail credit for time served in New York even though Minnesota authorities had requested a hold), review denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 1988).  Thus, if a portion of the out-of-state incarceration is attributable to an out-of-state charge, a defendant is not entitled to custody credit toward the Minnesota offense for that period of incarceration.  State v. Bentley, 329 N.W.2d 39, 40 (Minn. 1983); State v. Akbar, 419 N.W.2d 648, 650 (Minn. App. 1988) (citing Brown, 348 N.W.2d at 748).

A 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 (Minn. 1985), which controls intrajurisdictional cases); Hadgu, 681 N.W.2d at 32-33 (stating that Brown controls interjurisdictional cases while intrajurisdictional cases are controlled by broader principles); see generally 9 Henry W. McCarr & Jack S. Nordby, Minnesota Practice § 36.8 (3d ed. 2001) (listing distinct interjurisdictional rule).  When custody credit is calculated for multiple Minnesota offenses, our inquiry focuses on principles of equity to ensure that withholding credit does not result in a de facto upward departure from the sentencing guidelines or permit sentencing manipulation by the prosecutor.  State v. Goar, 453 N.W.2d 28, 29 (Minn. 1990).  For multiple Minnesota offenses, our analysis is not governed by whether time was served “in connection with” the current offense.  Id.  In contrast, a defendant is not entitled to custody credit for time detained on both an out-of-state charge and a Minnesota hold.  Willis, 376 N.W.2d at 428-29.  Rather, a defendant is entitled to custody credit only if the sole reason for the out-of-state incarceration is the Minnesota hold.  Id. at 429.

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.[1] 

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. 

Affirmed.