Cited by

“When determining whether to award custody credit, we distinguish between intrajurisdictional custody (custody within Minnesota) and interjurisdictional custody (custody outside of Minnesota).”

The state appealed, which distinguishes between interjurisdictional and intrajurisdictional custody credit.

“Generally, we do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.” aff’d

At the sentencing hearing, the district court determined that, based on State v. Roy , Olson was not eligible for credit for his time served in 8 federal custody because he was being held on separate charges in another jurisdiction.

I A defendant bears the burden of establishing that they are entitled to custody credit “for time spent in custody ‘in connection with the offense or behavioral incident being sentenced.’” -45 (Minn. 2019) (quoting Minn. R. Crim.

Appellant argues that, even though he is seeking credit from his California sentence to count toward his current Minnesota sentence, and Minn. R. Crim.

“A criminal defendant is entitled to custody credit for time spent in custody ‘in connection with the offense or behavioral incident being sentenced.’” (quoting Minn. R. Crim.

He contends that (1) which distinguishes credit awarded for custody within Minnesota and credit awarded for custody elsewhere, because this distinction violates the Equal Protection Clause; (2) he is entitled to custody credit for all the time he served in Wisconsin even if Roy applies; and (3) the district court erred b

“A criminal defendant is entitled to custody credit for time spent in custody ‘in connection with the offense or behavioral incident being sentenced.’ ” (quoting Minn. R. Crim.

“A criminal defendant is entitled to custody credit for time spent in custody ‘in connection with the offense or behavioral incident being sentenced.’” (quoting Minn. R. Crim.

See (refusing to apply a case involving a consecutive sentence to an appeal challenging custody credit).

“The 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.” (quotation omitted).

“The district court’s decision 4 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.” (quotation omitted).

“The 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.” d 341, 344 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

DECISION A district court’s decision to award custody credit involves “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.” (quotation omitted).

“The district court does not have discre tion on whether to award custody credit.”

its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and may not consider matters not produced and received in evidence below.” n.2 (Minn. 2019).