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 placed under house arrest with electronic monitoring from April 6, 2020, to January 27, 2021, except for work. During this period, specifically between December 18, 2020, and December 27, 2020, the Defendant violated the conditions of his house arrest by leaving his home for short periods and then returning. The State argued that for a forty-day period within this timeframe, the Defendant was not compliant with his house arrest conditions, impacting the calculation of his presentence confinement credit (PSCC).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued entitlement to PSCC for 296 days, covering the period of house arrest with electronic monitoring, and contested the State's reduction of this period due to alleged non-compliance.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Conceded to 280 days of PSCC but argued against granting PSCC for a forty-day period when the Defendant was not compliant with house arrest conditions, citing violations and non-compliance with electronic monitoring terms.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant is entitled to presentence confinement credit (PSCC) for the period of house arrest with electronic monitoring, including times of alleged non-compliance with house arrest conditions.

Disposition

• The Court reversed the district court's calculation of PSCC and remanded with instructions to credit the Defendant for the time spent on house arrest with electronic monitoring.

Reasons

• Per Bogardus, J. (Hanisee, C.J., and Medina, J., concurring): The Court found the State's argument against granting PSCC for the period following the Defendant's non-compliance with house arrest conditions unpersuasive. It highlighted the problematic nature of the State's fact-intensive evaluations for determining PSCC eligibility, emphasizing the potential for arbitrary and inconsistent application across cases. The Court agreed with the Defendant that violating house arrest conditions by leaving home for short periods did not negate the ability to prosecute for escape, noting that escape is considered a continuing offense until the individual is apprehended or surrenders. Given that the Defendant returned to his house arrest conditions after each unauthorized departure, the Court concluded that he remained in presentence confinement throughout the period in question and was therefore entitled to PSCC for the entire duration of his house arrest with electronic monitoring (paras 2-5).