This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

C3-97-678

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Mallie Robert Richardson,

Appellant.

Filed June 24, 1997

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

Parker, Judge

Rice County District Court

File No. KX96326

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent)

Jeffrey D. Thompson, Rice County Attorney, 218 Northwest Third Street, Faribault, MN 55021 (for respondent)

Steven P. Russett, Assistant State Public Defender, 875 Summit Avenue, LEC 304, St. Paul, MN 55105 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Parker, Presiding Judge, Toussaint, Chief Judge, and Harten, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

PARKER, Judge

Appellant Mallie Robert Richardson was convicted of check forgery in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.631, subd. 2(1) (1996), and of offering a forged check in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.631, subd. 3 (1996). Richardson appeals, arguing the trial court incorrectly determined the amount of jail credit to be applied to his sentence. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

D E C I S I O N

"The granting of jail credit is not discretionary with the trial court." State v. Parr, 414 N.W.2d 776, 778 (Minn. App. 1987), review denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 1988). Richardson argues the trial court erred in applying only 28 days jail credit toward his 22-month sentence. He contends he is entitled to 28 days plus 164 days jail credit, for a total of 192 days. Richardson claims that he was arrested in Oklahoma on the Minnesota forgery charges on January 15, 1996, and, upon extradition to Minnesota, remained in custody until July 1, 1996, when he was released on his own recognizance on the check forgery charges. Richardson also argues that a determination of jail credit is not discretionary. Therefore, he contends, this case should be remanded to the trial court to determine the actual date of his arrest in Oklahoma and to apply the appropriate amount of jail credit.

When imposing a sentence for a criminal offense, the trial court must "assure that the record accurately reflects 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). Jail credit should be given for time spent in jail in another state, solely in connection with the offense of sentencing, while awaiting extradition for prosecution. State v. Brown, 348 N.W.2d 743, 748 (Minn. 1984). Furthermore, even when there is no actual manipulation of the charging process by the prosecutor, jail credit should be determined fairly. State v. Folley, 438 N.W.2d 372, 374-75 (Minn. 1989); see also State v. Arden, 424 N.W.2d 293, 294 (Minn. 1988) (a delay in issuing a criminal complaint may be the subject of a prosecutor's manipulation).

At the outset, we note the trial court made clear it was not his intention to sentence Richardson as a career criminal. Furthermore, calculation of jail credit is a mandatory function of the trial court. State v. Fritzke, 521 N.W.2d 859, 861 (Minn. App. 1994). We conclude, therefore, that Richardson is entitled to additional jail credit in accordance with Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 4(B). Although the record makes clear that January 15, 1996, was the date of Richardson's arrest for violations of his Minnesota parole and the Minnesota forgery charges, the trial court must determine what constitutes his date of incarceration solely on the forgery charges. Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the sentence assigning jail credit and remand to the trial court to recalculate the jail credit due. The remainder of the sentence is affirmed.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.