People v. Henry
2013 COA 104M
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant Gesere Q. Henry appeals a sentence denial of presentence confinement credit (PSCC).
- The district court sentenced per the plea agreement but refused to award 897 days PSCC for time in jail prior to sentencing.
- Court believed PSCC could not apply because Henry was on parole when the new offense occurred.
- District court thought any PSCC would be applied to his prior (parole) case, not the new sentence.
- Defendant contends the court misinterpreted the PSCC statute and failed to include PSCC on the mittimus.
- On appeal, the issue is statutory interpretation of PSCC and the proper allocation of PSCC between sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Henry is entitled to PSCC for the pre-sentence confinement. | People contends Henry is entitled to 897 days PSCC. | Henry contends the court erred in denying PSCC. | Yes; entitled to PSCC; court erred in denial and mittimus omits credit. |
| Who determines the amount and allocation of PSCC? | People argues the district court must determine amount; DOC applies credits. | Henry argues district court improperly considered DOC allocation. | District court must determine amount and enter on mittimus; DOC applies credits. |
| Remand for mittimus to reflect PSCC? | People seeks correction via mittimus. | Henry seeks proper credit reflected. | Remand to amend mittimus to include 897 days PSCC. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. People, 196 P.3d 1188 (Colo. 2008) (district court role is to find PSCC amount and enter it; DOC applies credits)
- Schubert v. People, 698 P.2d 788 (Colo. 1985) (credit requires showing charge/conduct caused confinement)
- People v. Roy, 252 P.3d 24 (Colo. App. 2010) (allocation of PSCC between new and prior offenses implied by statute)
- People v. Ostuni, 58 P.3d 581 (Colo. 2002) (allocation/processing of PSCC responsibilities)