State v. Maldonado

Opinion

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

ERNESTO JAIMES MALDONADO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0180

FILED 8-23-2016

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County No. S1400CR201500819

The Honorable Steven J. Rouff, Judge Pro Tempore

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee

Yuma County Public Defender’s Office, Yuma By Edward F. McGee Counsel for Appellant

STATE v. MALDONADO

Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Maurice Portley and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

B R O W N, Chief Judge:

¶1 Ernesto Jaimes Maldonado appeals his conviction and sentence for transportation of marijuana for sale, asserting he is entitled to 231 days of presentence incarceration credit instead of the 230 days awarded by the court. In response, the State concedes the error.

¶2 Failure to award full credit for time served in presentence incarceration is fundamental error. See State v. Cofield, 210 Ariz. 84, 86, ¶ 10 (App. 2005). All time actually spent in custody pursuant to an offense until the prisoner is sentenced to imprisonment for such offense shall be credited against the term of imprisonment. Arizona Revised Statutes sections 13- 712(B), -903(F).

¶3 The record supports Maldonado’s argument and thus we accept the State’s concession of error. We therefore modify Maldonado’s sentence to reflect a total of 231 days of presentence incarceration credit. We otherwise affirm Maldonado’s conviction and sentence.

Amy M. Wood • Clerk of the court FILED: AA