State v. Clarkin, 817 N.W.2d 678

Clarkin pleaded guilty to a single count of felony harassment/stalking under a negotiated plea, receiving a 35-month term; remaining counts were dismissed.
Clarkin spent July 13, 2008–February 19, 2009 in custody on an unrelated parole violation, and later argued this time should be jail credit against the harassment/stalking sentence.
State contends the time in custody was for the parole violation and not eligible for credit, and that the court should treat the underlying sentences as consecutive.
Court of Appeals affirmed denial of jail credit on grounds of presumptive consecutiveness; this Court granted review to address proper jail-credit rule and timing of credit.
Record shows additional graffiti/OFP-related incidents and a prolonged investigation leading to charges filed November 24, 2009; Clarkin pleaded guilty March 2, 2010 and was sentenced March 29, 2010.
The central issue is whether jail credit should be awarded for time spent in custody prior to the harassment/stalking charges being charged, under Folley versus Fritzke jurisprudence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jail credit is available when sentences are presumptively concurrent	Clarkin argues concurrent sentencing supports 222 days credit	State argues sentences were presumptively consecutive due to supervision-release violations	Concurrently sentenced; no 222-day jail-credit awarded under Folley framework
Whether the Folley rule should be replaced by Fritzke probable-cause rule	Clarkin advocates Fritzke probable-cause rule to grant credit from arrest date	State cautions against adopting probable cause rule	Minnesota adheres to Folley rule; does not adopt Fritzke probable-cause test
Whether the State had probable cause before Clarkin entered custody July 13, 2008	Probable cause existed earlier for the July 5, 2008 graffiti incident	State argues probable cause did not exist until after release from parole violation	Probable cause for harassment/stalking charges did not exist until September 6, 2009; no credit for July 13, 2008–February 19, 2009 period under Folley
Whether the postconviction court’s factual findings on probable cause were correct	N/A	N/A	District court correctly applied Folley; Clarkin not entitled to jail credit

State v. Folley, 438 N.W.2d 372 (Minn. 1989) (foundation for jail-credit rule and against prosecutorial manipulation)
State v. Dulski, 363 N.W.2d 307 (Minn. 1985) (concurrent sentencing and quashing de facto penalties)
State v. Patricelli, 357 N.W.2d 89 (Minn. 1984) (double-counting concerns with consecutive sentencing)
State v. Fritzke, 521 N.W.2d 859 (Minn.App. 1994) (probable-cause rule for jail credit following arrest)
State v. Johnson, 744 N.W.2d 376 (Minn. 2008) (standard for reviewing jail-credit determinations; burden on defendant to show entitlement)
State v. Lopez, 778 N.W.2d 700 (Minn. 2010) (probable-cause analysis applied to sentencing context)
State v. Morales, 532 N.W.2d 268 (Minn. App. 1995) (probable-cause considerations in jail credit cases)
State v. Misquadace, 644 N.W.2d 65 (Minn. 2002) (limits on departures from presumptive sentences)