450 P.3d 311
Idaho2019Background
- Jan. 20, 2018: Keeton arrested for felony DUI (alleging two prior DUIs) and spent 32 days in custody after that arrest.
- Original complaint (CR-2018-925-FE) alleged prior DUIs dated Jan. 17, 2017 and Jan. 4, 2018; at preliminary hearing the Jan. 4 instrument was objected to as not constituting a conviction.
- The district court dismissed the original complaint without prejudice because the alleged second prior was not a conviction at that time.
- Keeton later pleaded guilty to the second prior on May 1, 2018; the State refiled the same Jan. 20, 2018 felony DUI with a corrected prior-date and new case number (CR-2018-6092-FE).
- Keeton pleaded guilty to the refilled charge and sought credit for the 32 days he spent in custody after the original arrest; the district court denied credit because the time predated the judgment in the refilled case.
- The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding I.C. § 18-309 requires credit when the prejudgment incarceration was for the offense for which judgment later was entered, even if the original complaint was dismissed and the case refiled under a new number.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Keeton's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether I.C. § 18-309 requires credit for prejudgment incarceration when an initial complaint is dismissed and the same offense is later refiled | Credit not owed because Keeton served time in a different (dismissed) case and had no sentence in the refilled case during incarceration | § 18-309 mandates credit because the 32 days were incarceration for the same offense later charged and sentenced | Reversed: § 18-309 entitles defendant to credit where prejudgment incarceration was for the offense for which judgment later was entered, regardless of case number or dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Owens, 343 P.3d 30 (Idaho 2015) (interpreting I.C. § 18-309 to require credit for prejudgment incarceration tied to the offense for which judgment is entered)
- State v. Brand, 395 P.3d 809 (Idaho 2017) (holding § 18-309 applies even when incarceration rests on multiple or unrelated offenses; articulated two-prong test for credit)
- State v. Burnight, 978 P.2d 214 (Idaho 1999) (statutory-interpretation principles: give plain language its ordinary meaning)