Cited by

§ 13-712(B), and if he was not properly credited with that time, this court can correct that credit on appeal

(“[A] person’s liberty is at stake in a sentencing procedure .

The defendant bears the burden of proving entitlement to presentence incarceration credit, ¶ 10 (App. 2014), and may raise the issue of insufficient credit “at any time,”

When a trial court imposes concurrent terms of imprisonment, the defendant is entitled to presentence incarceration credit on each count, and the failure to give full credit constitutes fundamental error, ¶ 10 (App. 2005) ().

A trial court’s failure to credit a defendant with the appropriate length of presentence custody constitutes fundamental error, and this Court reviews de novo a grant of presentence incarceration credit, ¶ 5

3 STATE v. NAVARRETE Decision of the Court CONCLUSION ¶9 For the reasons stated, we modify Navarrete’s sentence to reflect entitlement to 590 days of presentence incarceration credit, and affirm his sentence as modified.

A trial court’s failure to credit a defendant with the appropriate length of presentence custody constitutes fundamental error, and this court reviews de novo a grant of presentence incarceration credit, ¶ 5

-99, -38 (App. 1989) (holding that a trial court’s failure to award the correct amount of credit for presentence incarceration towards a defendant’s sentence constitutes fundamental error pursuant to A.R.S.

We “will not read into a statute something which is not within the manifest intent of the legislature as reflected by the statute itself.”

We have previously stated that a trial court’s failure to grant a defendant full credit for presentence incarceration “clearly constituted fundamental error.”