"A defendant is not entitled to credit for time he spent in jail for other offenses." State v. Michael Bikrev, No. M2001-01620-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 170734, at *7 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Feb. 4, 2002) (citing Trigg v. State, 523 S.W.2d 375 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1975)); see also Christopher A. Johnson v. State, No. E2002-01208-CCA-R3-PC, 2003 WL 21145504, at *2 (Tenn.

State v. Jermain Sean Lipford, No. M2011-00137-CCA0R3-CD, 2012 WL 4327207, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Sept. 19, 2012) (citing State v. Michael Bikrev, No. M2001-01620-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 170734 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Feb. 4, 2002) and State v. Frederick Cavitt, No. E1999-00304-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 964941 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, July 13, 2000)), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed.

This Court has repeatedly rejected "double dipping" for credits from periods of continuous confinement for two separate and unrelated charges. See e.g. State v. Michael Bikrev, No. M2001-01620-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 170734 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Feb. 4, 2002); State v. Frederick Cavitt, No. E1999-00304-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 964941 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, July 13, 2000).

State v. Timothy S. Bradley, No. 01C01-9804-CC-00165, 1999 WL 155916, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Mar. 23, 1999) ("Appellant is not entitled to pre-trial jail credit in this case because the reason for his confinement in the Dickson County Jail arose from the Dickson County offenses and not the Humphreys County offenses for which Appellant was sentenced in this case."); see also State v. Earl D. Mills, No. E2004-01218-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 1551339, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, July 5, 2005) (finding that a defendant convicted of vehicular homicide was not entitled to jail credit for the time he served for an unrelated violation of probation); State v. Michael Bikrev, No. M2001-01620-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 170734, at *7 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Feb. 4, 2002) (holding that a defendant who was serving time for a violation of probation was not entitled to jail credit toward his sentence for another offense); State v. Abernathy, 649 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983) (rejecting the defendant's argument that he should receive jail credit and noting that the time he spent in jail "was not time served arising out of or in relation to his robbery conviction"); Majeed v. State, 621 S.W.2d 153, 155 (Tenn.

This Court has repeatedly rejected "double dipping" for credits from periods of continuous confinement for two (2) separate and unrelated charges. See e.g. State v. Michael Bikrev, No. M2001-01620-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 170734 (Tenn.Crim.App., at Nashville, Feb. 4, 2002); State v. Frederick Cavitt, No. E1999-00304-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 964941 (Tenn.Crim.App., at Knoxville, July 13, 2000). We conclude that the appellant is not entitled to credits from a period of continuous confinement in this state for separate and unrelated charges.

At the same time, the commission of the offense also does not imply that the conspiracy automatically included all later statements pertaining to the concealment of the offense. The court affirmed that the duration of the conspiracy is dependent on the facts of each case, citing with approval the Minnesota Supreme Court's adoption of the federal standard set forth in United States v. Mackey, 571 F.2d 376, 383 (7th Cir. 1978). Henry, 33 S.W.3d at 803 (citing State v. Buschkopf, 373 N.W.2d 756, 764 (Minn. 1985)); see also State v. Michael Bikrev, No. M2001-01620-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 91, at **15-16 (Nashville, February 4, 2002). Moreover, in the specific context of a conspiracy to commit a murder for the purpose of acquiring the proceeds of insurance policies on the victim's life, our supreme court has held that the "conspiracy continues until the conspirators' ultimate goal of collecting the proceeds of the crime has been achieved or abandoned."