Opinion
No. 5-782 / 05-0264
Filed November 23, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County, Michael Walsh, Judge.
Lisa Marie Boss appeals following the district court's denial of her motion for correction of jail credit. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Martha Lucey, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget Chambers, Assistant Attorney General, and Darin J. Raymond, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Lisa Marie Boss appeals from the order of the district court denying her motion for correction of jail credit. She contends she is entitled to credit for the time she was restrained pursuant to a material witness warrant issued in the first-degree murder prosecution against her husband for the death of their son. We affirm.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
On January 2, 2002, the district court issued an arrest warrant for Lisa Boss as a material witness in the first-degree murder case brought against her husband, Donald, for the death of their son, Timothy. Boss was arrested and booked into the Plymouth County Jail as a material witness on January 9, 2002. She was released from jail on January 18, but remained under the authority of the Plymouth County Sheriff through house arrest and electronic monitoring.
On August 27, 2002, the court granted Boss's request to be placed at Mercy Medical Center in Sioux City. On September 9, 2002, Boss moved from the medical center to Safebridge, a residential placement in Sioux City. During all of her placements, Boss remained subject to the jurisdiction of the Plymouth County Sheriff.
Donald was convicted of first-degree murder on December 12, 2002. Boss was not called as a witness in her husband's trial.
On December 17, 2002, the State charged Boss with first-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, and felony child endangerment. She was arrested the same day. The district court dismissed the material witness proceeding on February 14, 2003.
Boss reached a plea agreement with the State, and on November 10, 2003, she pled guilty to attempt to commit murder, voluntary manslaughter, felony child endangerment, and willful injury. The parties agreed that Boss would be given "credit for days spent in confinement in the Plymouth County Jail pending disposition of this case, pursuant to Code of Iowa § 903.5." On December 8, 2003, the court sentenced Boss to serve twenty-five years for attempt to commit murder, ten years for voluntary manslaughter, ten years for child endangerment, and five years for willful injury. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. The court granted Boss credit for time spent in confinement in the county jail "since December 17, 2002."
Boss did not file a direct appeal from her convictions. However, on September 3, 2004, she filed a motion to correct jail credit, seeking additional credit against her prison sentence for the time she was "detained" following her arrest on the material witness warrant. The district court denied her motion. Boss now appeals.
II. Scope of Review
The scope of review for a challenge to the trial court's application of sentencing statutes is for the correction of errors at law. State v. Edgington, 601 N.W.2d 31, 32 (Iowa 1999).
III. Discussion
Boss argues she is entitled to credit under Iowa Code section 903A.5 (2001) for the period of time from the date of her arrest on a warrant as a material witness in the prosecution of Donald until December 17, 2002, the date she was personally charged with criminal offenses. We disagree.
Section 903A.5 contains the following passage:
If an inmate was confined to a county jail or other correctional or mental facility at any time prior to sentencing, or after sentencing but prior to the case having been decided on appeal, because of failure to furnish bail or because of being charged with a nonbailable offense, the inmate shall be given credit for the days already served upon the term of the sentence.
In order to receive credit for presentence time served, a defendant must be detained for the offense for which he or she is ultimately convicted. See State v. Orte, 540 N.W.2d 435, 438 (Iowa 1995) (holding that a defendant was not entitled to credit for time served on unrelated drug conviction charge before he was sentenced on homicide by vehicle conviction); State v. Harrison, 468 N.W.2d 215, 217-18 (Iowa 1991) (finding that when a defendant requested credit from time served on a conviction for driving while barred to apply to his sentence for a drug conviction, the district court correctly denied credit for time served before the State brought the drug charge against the defendant); Walton v. State, 407 N.W.2d 588, 591 (Iowa 1987) (holding that in order to receive credit for presentence time served, a defendant must be detained for the offense for which he or she is ultimately convicted). In this case, the record reveals Boss was not detained as a result of any criminal charges pending against her during the relevant time period. Instead, Boss was detained as a material witness for her husband's first-degree murder trial. Guided by the foregoing authorities, we conclude Boss was not entitled to credit for any time she was detained as a material witness because of a separate prosecution of another person.
We also believe that Boss's claim fails for another reason. Even if we assume, without deciding, that Boss was entitled to credit for time served as a material witness in her husband's first-degree murder trial, we find that she was not confined in "a county jail or other correctional or mental facility" as required by section 903A.5 during the time period at issue in this case. Although Boss was subject to the jurisdiction of the sheriff following her arrest as a material witness, she was released to in-home detention and private residential facilities during the period from January 19, 2002, until her arrest on criminal charges on December 17, 2002. The district court properly found that Boss was not in a correctional institution or detention facility during period of time for which she claims credit for time spent "in confinement."
We conclude the district court properly denied Boss's motion for correction of jail credit, and we affirm the ruling of the district court.