Jonathon Duane Taylor Hanson, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-1763

Jonathon Duane Taylor Hanson, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota,
Respondent.

Filed August 27, 2018
Affirmed
Reilly, Judge

Stearns County District Court
File Nos. 73-CR-14-10739, 73-CR-15-1266

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Sharon E. Jacks, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Janelle P. Kendall, Stearns County Attorney, Kyle R. Triggs, Assistant County Attorney,
St. Cloud, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Kirk, Presid ing Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Smith, Tracy
M., Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
REILLY, Judge
Appellant Jonathon Duane Taylor Hanson challenges a district court order denying
his request for additional jail credit against his attempted-murder sentence. We affirm.

2
FACTS
In December 2014, appellant was involved in a shooting in a motel parking lot,
resulting in injury to anothe r individual. Appellant was prohibited from possessing a
firearm due to a prior crime-of-violence conviction. During the course of the investigation
into the shooting, police officers uncovered evidence that appellant was prostituting a 16-
year-old juvenile at the motel. The state charged appellant in two separate complaints for
(1) attempted murder, assault with a danger ous weapon, and ineligible possession of a
firearm, and (2) promoting the prostitutio n of a minor, receiving profits from the
prostitution of a minor, and engaging in sex trafficking of a minor.
In January 2015, the district court sentenced appellant to 36 months in prison on a
2014 assault charge. The release date for this assault conviction was September 29, 2016.
In August 2016, appellant entered a plea of guilty to attempted murder, one count of
second-degree assault, and ineligible possession of a firearm. He also entered a plea of
guilty to receiving profits fro m the prostitution of a child under the age of 18. The
remaining charges in each case were dismissed.
In a plea agreement, the state and the defe nse agreed that appellant would receive a
sentence of 206 months in prison for the attempted-murder conviction. The parties agreed
that the 206-month sentence for attempted murder would run consecutively to the 36-
month assault sentence. The sentences on the remaining offenses would run concurrently
with the assault sentence. On November 1, 2016, the district court sentenced appellant on
the attempted murder charge and remaining counts in accordance with the plea agreement.
The district court awarded appellant 33 days of jail credit on th e attempted-murder

3
conviction, representing the di fference between appellant’s release date for his assault
sentence, September 29, 2016, and the November 1, 2016 sentencing date. Appellant also
received 691 days of jail credit for the remain ing offenses because those sentences were
concurrent with the assault. Appellant file d a motion for additional jail credit, which the
district court denied. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Appellant argues that the district court erred by denying his request for additional
jail credit against his attempted- murder sentence. A challenge to a district court’s award
of jail credit “is a mixed question of fact and law.” State v. Johnson, 744 N.W.2d 376, 379
(Minn. 2008). “[T]he court must determine the circumstances of the custody the defendant
seeks credit for, and then apply th e rules to those circumstances.” Id. We review legal
conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. Id. The granting of jail 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). Neverthe less, the defendant “carries the
burden of establishing that he is entitled to jail credit. . . .” State v. Willis , 376 N.W.2d
427, 428 n.1 (Minn. 1985).
When pronouncing sentence, the district court must “[s]tate the number of days
spent in custody in connection with the offense or behavioral incident being sentenced.”
Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 4(B). A criminal defendant is entitled to jail credit for time
spent in custody “in connection with the offense or behavioral incident being sentenced.”
Id. This remains the rule even when the time served is in connection with two concurrent

4
sentences, but it is not the rule for consecutive sentences. State v. Clarkin , 817 N.W.2d
678, 685-86 (Minn. 2012).
Under the terms of the plea agreement, the parties agreed that appellant’s 206-month
attempted-murder sentence would run consecutively to his 36-month assault sentence. The
remaining sentences for receiving profits fr om prostitution, second-degree assault, and
ineligible firearm possession would run conc urrently with appellant’s September 2014
assault conviction. At sentencing, the district court adhered to this agreement and awarded
appellant 691 days of jail credit for receiving pr ofits from prostitution, second-degree
assault, and firearm possession. Additionally, the district court awarded appellant 33 days
of jail credit for the attemp ted-murder conviction—the di fference between appellant’s
September 29, 2016 release date for his a ssault sentence and the November 1, 2016
sentencing date.1 “In situations of consecutive sentences, the jail credit should be applied
to only the first sentence . . . because to do otherwise would constitute ‘double credit.’”
State v. Cameron, 603 N.W.2d 847, 848 (Minn. App. 1999) (citing State v. Patricelli, 357
N.W.2d 89, 94 (Minn. 1984)). Thus, “[t]o avoid double credit when applying jail credit to
consecutive sentences, the court must apply the jail credit to the firs t sentence only.”
Townsend v. State, 834 N.W.2d 736, 740 n.3 (Minn. 2013) (citing Minn. Sent. Guidelines
3.C.2(b) (2012)). The district court properly applied the law in imposing sentence.
Appellant argues that each of his sentence s should have run concurrently and that
he is entitled to 691 days of jail credit for each conviction. Neither the law nor the factual

1 Appellant was in custody pending sentencing for his attempted-murder conviction.

5
record supports this claim. At sentencing, the district court stat ed that the attempted-
murder sentence was consecu tive to the assault sentence , while the remaining three
sentences were concurrent with the assault se ntence. To award appellant additional jail
credit on his attempted-murder conviction would result in a “double credit” on his
sentences. See Effinger v. State , 380 N.W.2d 483, 489 (Mi nn. 1986) (cautioning against
double credit for consecutive sentences). Appellant faile d to satisfy his burden of
establishing that he is entitled to additional jail credit. Accordingly, we conclude that the
district court did not err by denying appellant’s request.
Affirmed.