 |
| This has nothing to do with jail credit. It is a lovely photo, though. |
By Elizabeth Kruska
This is a case about Corrections Math. The long and short of it is that if someone is held in jail pre-trial, that person is entitled to credit toward his or her sentence. You’d think that would be easy. You’d be wrong.
The problem turns out to be that credit needs to be able to attach to something. A defendant can’t get credit for time in jail not spent in jail. Also, a defendant can only get credit toward a sentence if the time spent in jail attaches to the particular charge for which a defendant is being held.
Here’s what happened to Mr. Bridger. He got arrested on January 27, 2009 for some burglaries in Bennington County. While he was being processed, he got questioned about some Rutland County crimes. Just after midnight on January 28, he was taken to the correctional facility and held on bail. He was arraigned the same day and continued to be held on bail.
Well. It wasn’t until July of that year that Rutland County finally officially charged him with the Rutland crimes. Not sure why – it’s entirely possible they had more investigating to do. Regardless, that’s when he got charged.
He got sentenced to a jail sentence on both the Bennington and Rutland cases. He got credit for time served from January 27 forward toward Bennington, but only from July forward toward Rutland. He filed a habeas petition, and tried to argue that he should get credit from January 27 forward for both charges. His rationale was that he was questioned in connection with Rutland on January 27, so he was arguably “in custody” with respect to Rutland from that time forward.
The trial court disagreed, and wouldn’t award him that credit to go toward the Rutland sentence. However, it did award him the one day of January 27, because he was questioned in connection with the Rutland charges that day and should be awarded credit for that day.
He appeals, and to his detriment, not only does SCOV affirm the non-award of 6 months of credit toward Rutland, it also takes away the January 27 day, pursuant to the State’s argument on cross-appeal.
Quite simply, just because there was an investigation on the Rutland case doesn’t mean he was charged with that case until he was actually charged. Unfortunately for him, that didn’t happen until July, and even more unfortunately, that means there’s 6 months’ worth of jail time that only counts for one of his cases.
Furthermore, just because the police asked him questions on January 27, didn’t make him in custody for Department of Corrections custody purposes. He still wasn’t charged with that offense, so that time during which he and the police were having a conversation about the unrelated crimes doesn’t count toward his sentence.
This is all unfortunate because he also has a consecutive sentence in New York that he needs to go start serving. Every bit of Vermont credit he can get gets him closer to finishing his Vermont sentence and closer to going to New York to deal with his New York sentence.
He appeals, and to his detriment, not only does SCOV affirm the non-award of 6 months of credit toward Rutland, it also takes away the January 27 day, pursuant to the State’s argument on cross-appeal.
Quite simply, just because there was an investigation on the Rutland case doesn’t mean he was charged with that case until he was actually charged. Unfortunately for him, that didn’t happen until July, and even more unfortunately, that means there’s 6 months’ worth of jail time that only counts for one of his cases.
Furthermore, just because the police asked him questions on January 27, didn’t make him in custody for Department of Corrections custody purposes. He still wasn’t charged with that offense, so that time during which he and the police were having a conversation about the unrelated crimes doesn’t count toward his sentence.
This is all unfortunate because he also has a consecutive sentence in New York that he needs to go start serving. Every bit of Vermont credit he can get gets him closer to finishing his Vermont sentence and closer to going to New York to deal with his New York sentence.
But, credit can only be given where it’s due, and unfortunately for Mr. Bridger, it just wasn’t due here.
Comments
Post a Comment