Cited by

A defendant sentenced to consecutive sentences has a right to credit on just one sentence, “even if the defendant was in custody pursuant to all of the underlying charges prior to trial.”

But “[w]hen consecutive sentences are imposed, a defendant is not entitled to presentence incarceration credit on more than one of those sentences[.]”

(A defendant is not entitled to a “double credit windfall” by receiving presentence incarceration credit for a sentence to be served consecutively to an ongoing sentence.).

¶12 barred him from receiving credit toward a consecutive sentence and therefore implies he must have received a concurrent one.

(“When consecutive sentences are imposed, a defendant is not entitled to presentence incarceration credit on more than one of those sentences, even if the defendant was in custody pursuant to all of the underlying charges prior to trial.”).

A defendant sentenced to consecutive sentences “is not entitled to presentence incarceration credit on more than one of those sentences, even if the defendant was in custody pursuant to all of the underlying charges prior to trial.”

(citing United States v. VonWillie, 59 F.3d 922, 930 (1995)).

(holding that pre-sentence incarceration prior to placement on probation only applied to one of consecutive terms of prison); (holding that crediting pre-sentence incarceration on a revocation of probation for time served prior to revocation not mandated); ("When consecutive sentences are imposed, a defendant is not entitled to presentence incarceration credit on more than one of those sentences, even if the defendant was in custody pursuant to all of the underlying charges prior to trial.").

4 STATE V. BEARD Decision of the Court ¶10 A defendant sentenced to consecutive sentences is entitled to presentence incarceration credit on just one sentence, “even if the defendant is in custody pursuant to all of the underlying charges prior to trial.”

The superior court found the claim was precluded because it could have been raised on direct appeal, and found that even if not precluded, Hairston was not entitled to “double credit for presentence incarceration in consecutive sentences,”

(noting that when consecutive sentences are imposed, a defendant is not entitled to presentence incarceration credit on more than one of those sentences); see also A.R.S.

The court found that Mamoth was not entitled to “double credit” P.2d 104 (App. 1997); P.2d 160 (App. 1988); P.2d 825 (App. 1992).

“When consecutive sentences are imposed, a defendant is not entitled to presentence incarceration credit on more than one of those sentences, even if the defendant was in custody pursuant to all of the underlying charges prior to trial.” (citation omitted).

2 “When consecutive sentences are imposed, a defendant is not entitled to presentence incarceration credit on more than one of those sentences, even if the defendant was in custody pursuant to all of the underlying charges prior to trial.”

Although a defendant is generally not awarded presentence incarceration credit for a consecutive sentence when the time spent in custody was for multiple crimes that lead to a mix of consecutive and concurrent sentences, here Vallejo was in custody for 173 days prior to committing the 2014 offenses (and his sentences for the 2014 convictions do not include credit for these 173 days).3 Accordingly, his time in custody before committing the 2014 offenses should be credited against the time to be s

“When consecutive sentences are imposed, a defendant is not entitled to presentence incarceration credit on more than one of those sentences.” ( ).

(“When consecutive sentences are imposed, a defendant is not entitled to presentence incarceration credit on more than one of those sentences .