State v. Eilola, 226 W. Va. 698

Appellant David Eilola was jailed March 29, 2006 and remained in custody awaiting trial.
He was convicted on March 29, 2007 of multiple offenses and sentenced August 8, 2007 to consecutive terms totaling 6-27 years.
495 days of presentence time served were credited against the maximum for the first-degree murder sentence, with an August 6, 2007 effective sentence date set by the circuit court.
The State moved to correct the penitentiary commitment to reflect Middleton’s rule that presentence credit goes against the aggregated maximum of consecutive sentences.
The circuit court amended commitments, and appellant sought appellate review focusing on credit for time served and parole eligibility.
This Court reversed and remanded to apply time-served credit to the aggregate minimum term for parole eligibility, overruling Middleton to the extent inconsistent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Credit allocation for presentence time	Eilola argues Middleton wrongfully limits credit to max terms.	State argues Middleton disapproved for apportionment; credit may go to max term.	Credit must apply to aggregate minimum term for parole eligibility.
Constitutional equal protection	Credit allocation as per Middleton disadvantages indigent defendants.	No constitutional violation from Middleton's approach.	No equal protection violation; Middleton overruled on this point to protect victims' fairness.
Relation of presentence credit to parole eligibility	Indigent defendant should not be disadvantaged in parole eligibility due to presentence time.	Parole eligibility is not guaranteed; credit timing is discretionary via statute.	Credit toward aggregate minimum term advances parole eligibility; applied to total consecutive sentences.
Override of Middleton, Scott, Echard, Middleton line	Overruling Middleton aligns with Echard and Scott harmonization.	Overruling creates inequity to victims and existing law.	Middleton overruled to harmonize credit with time served toward parole.
Remand remedy	Adjust sentencing date to reflect 495 days credit toward parole date.	Remand not needed; current dates suffice.	Remanded to adjust effective sentencing date to March 29, 2006 for 495 days toward parole.

State v. Middleton, 220 W.Va. 89 (2006) (held presentence credit against aggregated maximum term)
Echard v. Holland, 177 W.Va. 138 (1986) (good time deducted from total maximum when consecutive)
State v. Scott, 214 W.Va. 1 (2003) (time served allocated across consecutive sentences; debate over minimum vs maximum)
State v. McClain, 211 W.Va. 61 (2002) (presentence credit required; good time discretionary)
Endell v. Johnson, 738 P.2d 769 (Alaska Ct. App. 1987) (consecutive sentences credit against aggregate maximum; discussed across jurisdictions)
Tauiliili, 29 P.3d 918 (Haw. 2001) (presentence credit allocated to both min and max; dual credit example)
Hoch, 630 P.2d 143 (Idaho 1981) (double credit concerns in consecutive sentences)
Watts, 464 N.W.2d 715 (Mich. App. 1991) (credit not pyramided across consecutive sentences)
Arcand, 403 N.W.2d 23 (N.D. 1987) (jail credit should be applied to first of consecutive sentences)