State v. DiMaggio, 44 A.3d 468

DiMaggio pleaded guilty to felony heroin possession in 2006 and was sentenced to six months in jail and three years of probation.
In 2009 his probation violations led to a plea agreement sentencing him to 2.5 to 5 years in state prison, suspended for five years, conditioned on good behavior including Drug Court compliance.
The sentencing order placed him in the custody of the Grafton County correctional facility and required supervision by the county corrections department during the Drug Court Program.
The Drug Court Program was described as a condition of the suspended sentence, with potential sanctions for violations and termination proceedings if violated.
In December 2010 the State moved to impose the suspended sentence and the court terminated the defendant’s Drug Court participation, remanding him to state prison with credit for time served.
DiMaggio sought day-for-day credit for days he participated in the Drug Court Program while at liberty; the trial court denied, and the issue on appeal was whether RSA 651:19 and 651:19-a apply to his sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RSA 651:19 and 651:19-a authorize pretrial confinement credit for Drug Court liberty time.	DiMaggio argues he was entitled to credit for days at liberty.	State contends the statutes do not apply because he was sentenced to state prison, not day reporting or home confinement.	No; statutes do not apply, and credit is unavailable.

State v. Gardner, 162 N.H. 652 (2011) (statutory interpretation review de novo; interpret statutes as written)
State v. Burke, 162 N.H. 459 (2011) (interpret statutory language in context to promote justice)
State v. LaPlaca, 162 N.H. 174 (2011) (drug court participation and sanctions; pretrial credit considerations)
State v. Parker, 155 N.H. 89 (2007) (sentencing order determines the nature of the sentence)
State v. Perfetto, 160 N.H. 675 (2010) (broad discretion to impose conditions of sentence suspension; relation to rehabilitation)