Opinion
No. C7-97-1770.
Filed January 27, 1998.
Appeal from the District Court, St. Louis County, File No. K293301250.
Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, and
Alan L. Mitchell, St. Louis County Attorney, Brian D. Simonson, Assistant County Attorney, (for respondent)
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Rochelle R. Winn, Assistant State Public Defender, (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Short, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Peterson, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant Jackie Dean Provencher, Jr. contends the district court erred in denying his request for additional jail credit. We reverse and remand.
DECISION
Appellant was incarcerated for an unrelated offense on October 26, 1993, when he admitted his involvement in a burglary. The district court did not award appellant jail credit from October 26 because the court found that appellant had not fully admitted his involvement in the burglary. Instead, the district court calculated appellant's jail credit to begin on November 22, 1993, the date that prosecutors obtained statements from an informant concerning appellant. The district court stated that the evidence against appellant was insufficient to file charges concerning the burglary until after receipt of the informant's statements.
The Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure mandate credit for jail time already served, at the time the sentence is imposed by the court:
[The court] shall assure that the record accurately reflects all time spent in custody in connection with the offense or behavioral incident for which sentence is imposed. Such time shall be automatically deducted from the sentence and the term of imprisonment including time spent in custody as a condition of probation from a prior stay of imposition or execution of sentence.
Minn.R.Crim.P. 27.03, subd. 4(B). "The granting of jail credit is not discretionary with the trial court." State v. Parr , 414 N.W.2d 776, 778 (Minn.App. 1987), review denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 1988).
The calculation of jail credit "should not turn on matters that are subject to manipulation by the prosecutor." State v. Folley , 438 N.W.2d 372, 374 (Minn. 1989). However, a defendant "need not show actual manipulation by the prosecutor in order to receive credit for time spent in custody." State v. Fritzke , 521 N.W.2d 859, 861 (Minn.App. 1994). A defendant who is already incarcerated is entitled to jail credit "beginning on the date the prosecution acquires probable cause to charge defendant with the offense for which he or she was arrested." Id. at 862.
We conclude the district court erred in denying appellant's request for jail credit from October 26 because: (1) appellant's October 26 statement provided probable cause to charge appellant with burglary; (2) the informant's statement on November 22 referred exclusively to a different crime; and (3) no additional evidence concerning the burglary surfaced between appellant's October 26 statement and the filing of the complaint against him.
Because the award of jail credit is not discretionary we reverse. We remand for the district court to modify appellant's sentence to include jail credit from October 26, 1993.