AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was sentenced following a probation violation. The issue arose when the trial court did not credit the Defendant for the time served while incarcerated on his original sentence.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that he received an illegal sentence as the trial court failed to credit him for the time served while incarcerated on his original sentence (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Responded to the court's notice, indicating no opposition to the proposed disposition to credit the Defendant for the time served. The State also suggested that the Defendant is entitled to 365 days of credit, not 364 days as initially proposed (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court erred by not crediting the Defendant for the time served while incarcerated on his original sentence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for resentencing, with the Defendant to be credited for 365 days of time served (para 3).

Reasons

• BUSTAMANTE, Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, and RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge concurring): The decision to reverse and remand for resentencing was based on the Defendant's contention that he was not credited for the time served while incarcerated on his original sentence. The State's response, which did not oppose the proposed disposition and suggested an adjustment to the credit days from 364 to 365, further supported this decision. The unanimous agreement among the judges reflects a consensus on the proper credit due to the Defendant for time served (paras 1-3).