State v. Waller

544 P.2d 1147, 97 Idaho 377, 1976 Ida. LEXIS 276
CourtIdaho Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 20, 1976
DocketNo. 11629
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 544 P.2d 1147 (State v. Waller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Waller, 544 P.2d 1147, 97 Idaho 377, 1976 Ida. LEXIS 276 (Idaho 1976).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for first degree murder [378]*378on January 3, 1972. By motion filed pro se April 16, 1974, he asked the district court for credit on his sentence for the approximately six months he spent in the county jail prior to the imposition of sentence.1 He appeals from the district court order denying his motion.

The method for computing the term of imprisonment is established by I.C. § 18-309. The original section made no provision for credit for presentence incarceration.2 That section was repealed, however, effective January 1, 1972, shortly before appellant was sentenced. Subsequently, the legislature enacted the following statute, effective April 1, 1972:

I.C. § 18-309.
“In computing the term of imprisonment, the person against whom the judgment was entered, shall receive credit for any period of incarceration prior to entry of judgment, if such incarceration was for the offense or an included offense for which judgment was entered. The remainder of the term commences to run .only upon the actual delivery of the defendant at the place of imprisonment, and if thereafter, during such term, the defendant by any legal means is temporarily released from such imprisonment and subsequently returned thereto, the time during which he was at large must not be computed as part of such term.”3

By repealing the original section and subsequently enacting the amended section the legislature recognized the inequity of denying credit for presentence incarceration. Although the appellant here was sentenced shortly after the repeal and shortly before the reenactment which provided credit for incarceration before judgment, we agree with the Alaska Supreme Court that fairness dictates that the credit be given to him. Thompson v. State, 496 P.2d 651 (Alaska 1972). See also Hamv. State of North Carolina, 471 F.2d 406 (4th Cir. 1973); People v. Jones, 176 Colo. 61, 489 P.2d 596 (1971). Consequently, we reverse the order of the district court and remand for resentencing to give defendant credit for the time he spent in the county jail from July 6, 1971 to the time that judgment was entered.

Order reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Law v. Rasmussen
660 P.2d 67 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1983)
State v. Hoch
630 P.2d 143 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1981)
State v. Beer
551 P.2d 971 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
544 P.2d 1147, 97 Idaho 377, 1976 Ida. LEXIS 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-waller-idaho-1976.