Elmer R. Petersen v. The State of Wyoming, 455 P.3d 261

Petersen had a 2009 conviction (second-degree sexual assault) with a 4–16 year sentence; he was on parole until revocation in July 2018.
He was arrested in Pennsylvania on May 9, 2018 for parole violations and returned to Wyoming; separate arrest warrants for March/May 2018 domestic battery/strangulation and failure to register were served on August 30, 2018.
Appearance bonds were issued August 31, 2018 but Petersen remained in DOC custody; he was arraigned September 17, 2018 and later reached a plea agreement.
At the January 16, 2019 change-of-plea hearing Petersen entered guilty pleas to failure to register (2–3 years) and domestic battery (180 days), concurrent with his existing 4–16 sentence; he asked for credit for custody time since May 9, 2018.
The court stated Petersen was entitled to credit for time in custody on the charged offenses but that the exact number would be determined at sentencing.
At sentencing (April 26, 2019) the court awarded 102 days of credit (covering custody related to the charged offenses beginning in late August) and denied credit for the May 9–August 30 period; Petersen appealed.

Issue	Petersen's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to award credit for custody from May 9–Aug 30, 2018	Court had discretion to award credit for that confinement and erred (or believed it lacked authority) in denying it	Credit from May 9–Aug 30 was unrelated to the charged offenses; court properly credited only custody tied to those charges and law did not require more	No abuse of discretion: court understood its discretionary authority and reasonably declined to award the extra credit absent a showing it was part of the plea/agreement or otherwise warranted
Whether the court violated Petersen’s due process rights by inducing his plea through an assurance of credit for time since May 9	Court’s statements led Petersen to believe he would receive credit for the May 9 custody and thus induced his plea	No promise or assurance was made; the court only said Petersen was entitled to credit for time in custody on the charged offenses and the plea agreement contained no credit term	No due process violation: record contains no definite promise of credit for the May 9–Aug 30 period, so Petersen’s protected interest was not impermissibly affected

Askin v. State, 365 P.3d 784 (Wy. 2016) (sentencing court has discretionary authority to award presentence credit beyond what defendant is strictly entitled to)
Daniels v. State, 335 P.3d 483 (Wy. 2014) (due process violation where court promised discretionary credit then later recanted for lack of authority)
Sweets v. State, 36 P.3d 1130 (Wy. 2001) (defines presentence confinement as incarceration resulting from failure to post bond on the offense being sentenced)
Cothren v. State, 310 P.3d 908 (Wy. 2013) (courts must determine and state presentence confinement credit when imposing sentence)
Hagerman v. State, 264 P.3d 18 (Wy. 2011) (trial courts must include findings of time served in judgment and sentence)
Hutton v. State, 422 P.3d 967 (Wy. 2018) (sentence-credit entitlement reviewed de novo)
Gomez v. State, 85 P.3d 417 (Wy. 2004) (failure to award proper presentence credit results in illegal sentence and due process violation)
Brown v. State, 393 P.3d 1265 (Wy. 2017) (articulates burden to show protected interest and impermissible deprivation for due process claims)