Opinion
A20-1242
04-12-2021
Terrance James Leason, petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
ORDER OPINION
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-18-13139 Considered and decided by Frisch, Presiding Judge; Florey, Judge; and John Smith, Judge.
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. --------
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In May 2018, the State of Minnesota charged appellant Terrance James Leason with third-degree criminal sexual conduct. Leason was apprehended in Tennessee and held there solely for the Minnesota charge from June 11, 2018, to August 3, 2018. On August 3, 2018, the State of Tennessee charged Leason with two additional offenses. Leason was held in jail in Tennessee on all three charges until November 13, 2018, when he was extradited to Minnesota. Thereafter, Leason was held in Hennepin County until he was sentenced on March 8, 2019.
2. Leason pleaded guilty to third-degree criminal sexual conduct pursuant to a plea agreement that called for a 70-month sentence. The district court imposed a 70-month prison sentence and awarded jail credit for 170 days (including 54 days credit from Tennessee from June 11 through August 4 and 116 days credit from Minnesota from November 13 to March 8).
3. At the sentencing hearing, Leason asked the district court to award an additional 100 days of jail credit for the time he spent in custody in Tennessee from August 4 to November 12. The district court denied Leason's request and told him that if he thought he was entitled to more jail credit, to make the request in a letter, and the sentence could be amended.
4. Leason filed a postconviction motion asking the district court to award the additional 100 days jail credit because it was "fair and equitable to do so." The district court ruled that because Leason's Minnesota offense was not the sole reason for his custody in Tennessee from August 4 through November 12, he was not entitled to the additional 100 days of jail credit.
5. On appeal, Leason argues that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to award him the additional 100 days of jail credit because the district court told him it "could amend the order to include the credit Leason believed was missing." Appellate courts review the denial of a postconviction petition for an abuse of discretion. Miles v. State, 840 N.W.2d 195, 200 (Minn. 2013). A district court abuses its discretion when "its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record." Riley v. State, 792 N.W.2d 831, 833 (Minn. 2011).
6. A defendant is entitled to jail credit for the number of days spent in custody in connection with the offense being sentenced. Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 4(B); Minn. Stat. § 609.145, subd. 2 (2014). The Minnesota Supreme Court has established a test for determining out-of-state jail credit: "[f]or a defendant to receive credit on a Minnesota sentence for time spent in another jurisdiction's custody, the defendant's Minnesota offense must be the sole reason for the custody." State v. Roy, 928 N.W.2d 341, 345 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted). The defendant bears the burden of establishing that he is entitled to jail credit. Id. at 344.
7. In this case, Leason was awarded 170 days jail credit for time spent in Tennessee and Minnesota in connection with the current offense. The record indicates that from August 4 to November 12, Leason was in custody in Tennessee for the two Tennessee offenses in addition to the Minnesota offense. Because Leason was not in custody in Tennessee based solely on the Minnesota offense, he is not entitled to jail credit for the additional 100 days spent in custody in Tennessee.
8. Leason also argues that although he is not legally entitled to the jail credit at issue, it is "fair and equitable" to award him the credit here because the district court awarded credit for some of the time spent in custody in Tennessee and indicated a willingness to award additional credit upon a later request. But the district court did not guarantee Leason additional jail credit—it instead observed that it would consider modifying the jail-credit award if Leason submitted a request explaining why he was entitled to more credit. The district court did consider Leason's request and appropriately denied it.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Leason's request for an additional 100 days of jail credit.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Dated: April 12, 2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge James B. Florey