Com. v. Dixon, W., II, 161 A.3d 949

Willie Frank Dixon II (age 31) was charged in 2014 with multiple sexual-offense counts involving a female under 16; he pled nolo contendere to rape by forcible compulsion in April 2016.
At sentencing (July 25, 2016) court imposed 3½ to 7 years' incarceration per the plea agreement.
Dixon requested credit for ~10 months of court-ordered pretrial home confinement with electronic monitoring.
Trial court declined to rule at sentencing and directed Dixon to raise the claim in a post-sentence motion; the court denied the motion on August 29, 2016.
Dixon appealed, arguing his sentence is illegal because he should receive credit under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760 for time spent on electronic home monitoring.
The Superior Court reviewed whether pretrial home confinement with electronic monitoring qualifies as "time spent in custody" for statutory credit purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether time on pretrial home confinement with electronic monitoring qualifies as "custody" under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760 for credit against sentence	Dixon: time confined at home with electronic monitoring is equivalent to custody and merits credit toward his sentence	Commonwealth/Trial Ct: Pretrial electronic home monitoring is not "custody" under § 9760 and thus not eligible for credit	Court held: Electronic home monitoring does not constitute "custody" under § 9760; no credit awarded

Commonwealth v. Kyle, 874 A.2d 12 (Pa. 2005) (holding release on electronic home monitoring is not "custody" for § 9760 credit and adopting a bright-line rule)
Commonwealth v. Conahan, 589 A.2d 1107 (Pa. 1991) (holding certain noncustodial confinement in treatment facilities can qualify as "custody" for § 9760 credit)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 929 A.2d 205 (Pa. 2007) (explaining plea of guilty waives nonjurisdictional defects but not legality of sentence)
Commonwealth v. Leverette, 911 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standards for reviewing legality of sentence)