State v. Galvan, 305 Neb. 513

Galvan pled no contest to (1) Class IV felony operating a motor vehicle to avoid arrest (2 years imprisonment + 12 months post-release supervision) and (2) Class IIIA felony assault by a confined person (180 days imprisonment + 12 months post-release supervision). Sentences were ordered consecutive.
After completing the incarceration portions, Galvan was released to post-release supervision for both cases beginning October 10, 2018.
The State moved to revoke post-release supervision in both cases on December 6, 2018; Galvan admitted the violations and supervision was revoked in both cases on April 16, 2019; he was remanded to custody pending sentencing.
At sentencing (June 19, 2019) the court imposed 5 months’ imprisonment in each case to run consecutively, but awarded no credit for the 64 days Galvan spent in custody between revocation and sentencing.
Galvan appealed, arguing (1) the court exceeded its authority by imposing consecutive 5-month terms upon revocation and (2) he was entitled to credit for the time served after revocation and before sentencing.

Issue	Galvan's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the court could revoke and impose imprisonment for both post-release supervision terms (i.e., impose consecutive 5-month terms)	Court exceeded statutory authority under § 29-2268(2); only the term actually being served may be revoked and converted to imprisonment	Both supervision terms were being served concurrently, so court could revoke each and impose imprisonment up to each remaining period	Vacated the 5-month term imposed in the assault-by-confined-person case as plain error; second term had not lawfully commenced because sentences were required to run consecutively, so court lacked authority to revoke/impose on that second term at that time
Whether Galvan was entitled to credit for 64 days in custody after revocation and before sentencing	He was entitled to credit because the custody time resulted from the original charges and revocation is a continuation of the original prosecution	Arguably confinement related to supervision administration (as in Phillips), so credit could be applied differently	Court held Galvan is entitled to 64 days of jail-time credit and modified the sentence to reflect that credit

State v. Phillips, 302 Neb. 686, 924 N.W.2d 699 (2019) (calculation of "remaining period of post-release supervision" and treatment of absconding time)
State v. Vanness, 300 Neb. 159, 912 N.W.2d 736 (2018) (approval of consecutive terms of post-release supervision)
State v. Russell, 248 Neb. 723, 539 N.W.2d 8 (1995) (interpretation that "shall" imposes mandatory consecutive sentencing)
State v. Kantaras, 294 Neb. 960, 885 N.W.2d 558 (2016) (plain-error review for illegal sentences)
State v. Harms, 304 Neb. 441, 934 N.W.2d 850 (2019) (purpose of § 47-503 to ensure correct jail-credit awards)
State v. Clark, 278 Neb. 557, 772 N.W.2d 559 (2009) (court may correct pronouncement errors regarding presentence credit)
U.S. v. Randall, 472 F.3d 763 (10th Cir. 2006) (multiple consecutive sentences are served one at a time)