State v. Mammoth
1 CA-CR 15-0658-PRPC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jun 1, 2017Background
- Jimmy Mamoth pleaded guilty in 2012 to promoting prison contraband (class 5 felony) and was sentenced to 1.5 years, to be served consecutively to an existing Pinal County sentence.
- Mamoth sought presentence credit for time spent in custody between transfer from the Department of Corrections to the county jail and sentencing, claiming 140 days of additional credit.
- In November 2014 Mamoth filed a "Nunc Pro Tunc with Memorandum of Law," which the superior court treated as an attempt to evade Rule 32 timelines and denied, citing precedent forbidding double credit for consecutive sentences.
- In 2015 Mamoth filed a successive, untimely post-conviction relief petition relying on State v. Seay to obtain credit; the superior court dismissed it for failure to provide supporting authority for an additional 140 days and for procedural defects.
- The Court of Appeals granted review but affirmed dismissal, holding Mamoth failed to show a meritorious reason for the untimely/successive filing and that awarding the credit would impermissibly give double credit where sentences are consecutive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to 140 days presentence credit | Mamoth: should receive credit for time between transfer and sentencing (140 days) under Seay | State: Mamoth already received credit against the Pinal County sentence; awarding credit here would double-count time for consecutive sentences | Denied — credit would result in impermissible double credit for consecutive sentences |
| Timeliness / Successive petition under Rule 32 | Mamoth: raised claim in post-conviction petition | State: petition is untimely and successive; Mamoth failed to show meritorious reason under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b) | Denied — petition dismissed as untimely/successive; no excuse shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Seay, 232 Ariz. 146, 302 P.3d 671 (App. 2013) (discussing presentence credit where sentences were concurrent)
- State v. Cuen, 158 Ariz. 86, 761 P.2d 160 (App. 1988) (prohibits double credit for presentence time when sentences are consecutive)
- State v. McClure, 189 Ariz. 55, 938 P.2d 104 (App. 1997) (same principle forbidding double credit)
- State v. Peek, 219 Ariz. 182, 195 P.3d 641 (2008) (timeliness requirements for claims of illegal sentence)