State v. LeClair, 88 A.3d 1186

Background

Defendant was arrested for burglary on March 24, 2010; bail set at $20,000 and he was held until December 30, 2010 when bail was reduced to zero with release under ADTC conditions.
On February 10, 2011, defendant pled guilty to burglary under a plea agreement tied to ADTC, with potential two-to-five year sentence suspended if ADTC was completed or five-to-fifteen years if terminated.
On April 2, 2012, while in ADTC, he was charged with additional offenses and held on new charges; he was sentenced on the new charges and resentenced on the burglary charge on September 18, 2012.
ADTC participation terminated August 10, 2012, triggering sentencing on the 2010 burglary offense; on September 18, 2012, he received a three-to-five year term for the 2010 burglary with time served, including ADTC sanctions.
On the same day, defendant pled to three of six 2012 charges, receiving two-to-five years to be served concurrently with the 2010 sentence, with time served credits allocated by the DOC (287 days for 2010, 170 days for 2012) but not the 170 days against the minimum of the 2010 sentence.
November 7, 2012, defendant moved to correct or modify his sentence for credit of the 170 disputed days; the superior court denied based on lack of custody on the 2010 offense.
The court ultimately held that Blondin and related decisions require credit for the entire 170 days against concurrent sentences when the earlier and later sentences are to be served concurrently, and that ADTC is analogous to probation so the time spent in custody pending sentencing on the later charges is attributable to both sentences.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether credit for time spent in custody between arrest and sentencing on the 2012 charges applies to the controlling 2010 burglary sentence.	Blondin framework supports credit on both sentences.	Credit should be applied to the controlling sentence as required for concurrent sentences.	Yes; defendant is entitled to credit against both concurrent sentences for that period.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Blondín, 164 Vt. 55 (Vt. 1995) (time spent in custody in probationary context credited toward both concurrent sentences)
State v. Marden, 142 Vt. 204 (Vt. 1982) (credit limited to period connected to the offense for which sentence imposed)
State v. Sommer, 2011 VT 59 (Vt. 2011) (sentence challenge under 13 V.S.A. § 7031(b) reviewed de novo for illegality)
State v. Oscarson, 2006 VT 30 (Vt. 2006) (de novo review on sentence reconsideration for credit issues)