State v. Beard, 1 CA-CR 16-0908

Beard was indicted and convicted of misconduct involving weapons (Class 4 felony) after a police officer found a concealed weapon during a pat-down.
Jury found Beard committed the offense while on parole from an earlier armed robbery conviction.
Beard was in custody from October 16, 2015 (date of offense) until released on bond July 21, 2016; remanded November 14, 2016 and sentenced December 14, 2016.
Beard’s presentence report recommended 311 days’ pre-sentence incarceration credit; the superior court awarded 179 days.
The superior court excluded custody time October 30, 2015–March 10, 2016 (period Beard was imprisoned on a parole violation) from credit for the new sentence, reasoning that time credited to the parole violation could not be double-counted.
Beard appealed the credit calculation and argued the court relied on evidence outside the record and miscalculated his entitlement to credit.

Issue	Beard's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Beard was entitled to 310/311 days’ presentence incarceration credit	Court misapplied law and omitted custody time; court considered evidence outside record	Time in custody for parole violation must be credited to prior sentence; consecutive sentences bar double credit	Denied; court correctly excluded parole-violation custody from credit for the new sentence
Whether the superior court improperly considered evidence outside the record without judicial notice	Court relied on materials not in the record to exclude October 30–March 10 period	Criminal history and parole-officer testimony in record established parole status and incarceration dates	Denied; evidence of parole and incarceration period was in the record via criminal history report and witness testimony
Whether Beard received double credit in violation of A.R.S. § 13-712(B)	Beard entitled to credit for all time actually spent in custody prior to sentencing	Defendant sentenced to consecutive terms is entitled to credit on only one sentence; no double credit	Denied; statutory and case law require consecutive service and preclude double credit
Whether the appellate court may modify the superior court’s 179-day credit	Superior court erred in arithmetic; record supports greater credit	State did not cross-appeal; an advantageous but arguably incorrect sentence cannot be corrected without cross-appeal	Court declined to modify; affirmed 179 days because State did not file a cross-appeal

State v. Rios, 169 Ariz. 108 (App. 1991) (released-on-parole sentence treated as an undischarged term of imprisonment)
State v. McClure, 189 Ariz. 55 (App. 1997) (defendant sentenced to consecutive sentences is entitled to presentence credit on only one sentence)
State v. Jackson, 170 Ariz. 89 (App. 1991) (same rule precluding multiple credits for consecutive sentences)
State v. Cuen, 158 Ariz. 86 (App. 1988) (defendant not entitled to double credit for time served)
State v. Hamilton, 153 Ariz. 244 (App. 1987) (no credit for the day of sentencing)
State v. Dawson, 164 Ariz. 278 (1990) (an illegal sentence favoring the appellant cannot be corrected on appeal absent a State cross-appeal)