Kyle Benton Askin v. State, 365 P.3d 784

Appellant Kyle Askin pled guilty in 2007 to failure to register as a sex offender; his sentence was suspended to probation with a condition to complete a community corrections program.
After leaving the program early, Askin’s probation was revoked and suspended sentences were re-imposed; he later pleaded guilty to an escape charge with a consecutive probationary sentence.
In 2014 Askin’s probation was revoked again; while incarcerated, he was charged and pled guilty to a new failure-to-register offense and received an 18–24 month sentence.
At sentencing on the new charge, Askin requested credit for time spent in confinement during adjudication; the district court denied credit, stating it believed it lacked authority to award such credit when the defendant was detained on unrelated charges.
Askin appealed, arguing the district court applied the wrong legal standard; the Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed for abuse of discretion and addressed whether the court had discretionary authority to award presentence credit under these circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court applied the correct legal standard in denying credit for time spent in presentence confinement	Askin: Court wrongly believed it lacked authority; Wyoming law gives district courts discretion to award presentence credit even if defendant was detained on unrelated charges	State: Time in custody while serving other sentences is not "presentence confinement"; therefore no credit is appropriate and any error review should be for plain error	Court reversed and remanded: district court has discretionary authority to award presentence-confinement credit in these circumstances and erred as a matter of law by believing it lacked such authority

Daniels v. State, 335 P.3d 483 (Wyo. 2014) (holds trial court has discretion to award presentence confinement credit even when defendant not in official detention)
Sweets v. State, 36 P.3d 1130 (Wyo. 2001) (confirms discretion to grant credit where detention is not due to indigency and total does not exceed statutory maximum)
Hedge v. State, 696 P.2d 51 (Wyo. 1985) (establishes discretionary rule for presentence credit when custody not due to indigency)
Jones v. State, 602 P.2d 378 (Wyo. 1979) (supports discretionary approach to awarding presentence credit)
Smith v. State, 932 P.2d 1281 (Wyo. 1997) (clarifies that defendants are not entitled to credit when custody would persist regardless of posting bond; does not negate trial court discretion)