Also, under certain unique circumstances, a state trial court may entertain requests for declaration of proper sentence credits. See State v. Cavitt, No. E1999-00304-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 964941, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 13, 2000) (citing Henry, 946 S.W.2d at 834)). --------
T.C.A. § 40-23-101 does not contemplate a defendant receiving pretrial jail credit for unrelated incarceration. See State v. Timothy Maurice Reynolds, No. M2003-02551-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 351254, at *2 (Tenn.Crim.App. at Nashville, February 10, 2005) (citing State v. Frederick Cavitt, No. E1999-00304-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 964941 (Tenn.Crim.App. at Knoxville, July 13, 2000). Likewise, T.C.A. § 40-23-101(c) will not permit a defendant to receive pretrial jail credits when the defendant "is convicted and incarcerated in another state after escaping the Tennessee prison system; or ... escapes confinement in Tennessee, is arrested and acquitted of charges in another state, and resists extradition back to Tennessee...." Cavitt, 2000 WL 964941 at *2 (citing State v. Abernathy, 649 S.W.2d 285, 285-86 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1983); Maieed v. State, 621 S.W.2d 153, 154-55 (Tenn.Crim.App.1981); Trigg 523 S.W.2d at 376.)
"This Court has repeatedly held that [section] 40-23-101(c) provides for credits against the sentence only if the incarceration, claimed as a basis for the credits, arises from the offense for which the sentence was imposed." State v. Cavitt, No. E1999-00304-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 964941, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 13, 2000).
Moreover, "'double-dipping' for credits from a period of continuous confinement in this state for two separate and unrelated charges has been rejected." State v. Frederick Cavitt, No. E1999-00304-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 964941[, at] *3 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, July 13, 2000)[.]
However, pretrial jail credits do not include time spent incarcerated on another conviction or before the commission of the offense at issue. See State v. Frederick Cavitt, No. E1999-00304-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 964941, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 13, 2000) ("This Court has repeatedly held that [Tennessee Code Annotated] § 40-23-101(c) provides for credits against the sentence only if the incarceration, claimed as a basis for the credits, arises from the offense for which the sentence was imposed."), no perm. app. filed; see also Trigg v. State, 523 S.W.2d 375, 376 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1975) ("It is only when the time spent in jail or prison is due to or, as the statute says, 'arises out of' the offense against which the claim is credited that such allowance becomes a matter of right.").
Moreover, pretrial jail credits do not include time spent incarcerated on another conviction or before the commission of the offense at issue. See State v. Frederick Cavitt, No. E1999-00304-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 964941, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 13, 2000) ("This Court has repeatedly held that [Tennessee Code Annotated] § 40-23-101(c) provides for credits against the sentence only if the incarceration, claimed as a basis for the credits, arises from the offense for which the sentence was imposed."), no perm. app. filed; see also Trigg v. State, 523 S.W.2d 375, 376 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1975) ("It is only when the time spent in jail or prison is due to or, as the statute says, 'arises out of' the offense against which the claim is credited that such allowance becomes a matter of right.").
Credit is allowed against the sentence only if the incarceration claimed as a basis for the credit arises from the offense for which the sentence was imposed. Id. (citing State v. Cavitt, No. E1999-00304-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 964941, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 13, 2000)). We agree with the chancery court's conclusion that the criminal court's application of pretrial jail credit toward the life sentence indicated its intention to designate the life sentence as the first of the three consecutive sentences to be served.
TDOC's calculation may well reflect the correct number of pretrial jail credits that should have been awarded to Petitioner. See State v. Cavitt, No. E1999-00304-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 964941, at *2, *3 (Tenn. Crim. App., filed July 13, 2000) ("This Court has repeatedly held that § 40-23-101(c) provides for credits against the sentence only if the incarceration, claimed as a basis for the credits, arises from the offense for which the sentence was imposed. . . . 'Double-dipping' for credits from a period of continuous confinement in this state for two separate and unrelated charges has been rejected by this Court."); State v. Davis, No. E2000-02879-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 340597, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App., filed Mar. 4, 2002) ("a defendant incarcerated pretrial who then receives a consecutive sentence is allowed pretrial jail credits to be applied only to the first sentence"). But as already discussed, TDOC does not have the authority to alter a trial court's judgment, in this case one that awarded him 3,521 days of pretrial jail credit.
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. In this case, the record shows, and the Defendant concedes, that on December 30, 2002, he was transferred to the Department of Correction in connection with prior drug-related convictions.
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). In the case herein, Appellant argues that there was a "hold" placed on him by the Franklin County Jail on June 6, 2011, for purposes of serving the revocation warrant and that he is entitled to jail credit from the date of the "hold" or "following the issuance of the revocation warrant but prior to the revocation order" despite the fact that he was serving a four-year sentence for new charges he received in Coffee County.