Cited by

“[T]he district court’s decision whether to award credit is a mixed question of fact and law.”

“A district court’s decision whether to award custody credit is a mixed question of fact and law; the court must determine the circumstances of the custody the defendant seeks credit for, and then apply the rules to those circumstances.”

7 court’s decision whether to award custody credit is a mixed question of fact and law; the court must determine the circumstances of the custody the defendant seeks credit for, and then apply the rules to those circumstances.”

Whether to award credit is a mixed question of fact and law that requires the district court to “determine the circumstances of the custody the defendant seeks credit for, and then apply the rules to those circumstances.”

That result would be contrary to the policy behind giving custody credit —“to ensure fairness and proportionality in sentencing.”

And an award of jail credit, moreover, “is not discretionary with the district court.”

1 (including deterrence, rehabilitation, and “confinement” for public safety among purposes of criminal code), .03 (defining “punishment” for various offenses in terms of length of imprisonment) (2022); Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 1.A (2020) (stating policy of proportional “sanctions”); (observing that the purpose of incarceration is “punishment”).

d 376, 379-80 (Minn. 2008).

4 “The decision to award custody credit is not discretionary with the district court.”

he is currently serving on his newly-executed DWI sentence.” The district court’s decision on whether to award custody credit “is a mixed question of fact and law; the court must determine the circumstances of the custody the defendant seeks credit for, and then apply the rules to those circumstances.”

(declining “to conflate treatment and punishment” for purposes of determining custody credit for time spent in a secure treatment facility pursuant to a civil commitment).

Kurtenbach also points to the discretionary nature of the governor’s for the proposition that “the decision to grant or deny jail credit should not turn on irrelevant factors or be subject to prosecutorial manipulation.” But, in Johnson, the supreme court was addressing intrajurisdictional custody when it discussed the need to avoid irrelevant factors and prosec

Once the district court determines the circumstances of the custody the defendant seeks credit for (a factual finding we review for clear error), it must “then apply the rul es to those circumstances.”

“The defendant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to credit for time spent i n custody during criminal proceedings.”

State v. Johnson , , 379 (Minn. 2008).

A challenge to a district court’s award of jail credit “is a mixed question of fact and law.”

“[The] decision whether to award [jail] cr edit is a mixed questi on of fact and law; the court must determine the circumstances of the custody the defendant seeks credit for, and then apply the rules to those circumstances.”

“[A] criminal defendant at sentencing shall get credit for time spent in jail in connection with the criminal charges.” (citation omitted).

(discussing the potential concern of de facto conversion of a concurrent sentence into a consecutive sentence as relevant in coming to a decision about custody credit).

“[A] criminal defendant at sentencing shall get credit for time spent in jail in connection with the criminal charges.”

“The decision to award custody credit is not discretionary with the district court.” (citing Minn. R. Crim.

DECISION “The decision to award custody credit is not discretionary with the district court.” (citing Minn. R. Crim.

(“Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, which [appellate courts] review de novo.”); (“Interpretation of the rules of criminal procedure is a question of law, which [appellate courts] review de novo.”).

The district court has no discretion in making an award of custody credit; rather, “the court must determine the circumstances of the custody the defendant seeks credit for, and then apply the rules to those circumstances.” see also Minn. R. Crim.

The district court’s decision on awarding jail credit “is a mixed question of fact and law.”

Pedraza argues that he “must be awarded custody credit for the time he spent incarcerated in Texas after he was charged in [Minnesota] to avoid his sentence being consecutive and to correct the inequities in this case.” “The decision to award custody credit is not discretionary with the district court.”

“A district court’s decision whether to 10 award credit is a mixed question of fact and law; the court must determine the circumstances of the custody the defendant seeks credit for, and then apply the rules to those circumstances.”