State v. Mwangi
161 N.H. 699
| N.H. | 2011Background
- Mwangi was convicted of driving while a habitual offender in 2006 and sentenced to 1–4 years with parole in 2006.
- He was arrested for robbery in November 2008 and bail was set; he could not post bail and remained in custody.
- A parole violation was alleged in November 2008 based on failure to obey laws, good conduct, and report to parole officer, leading to a detention order.
- He was moved to state prison on November 14, 2008; a robbery conviction followed in August 2009, with sentencing in October 2009.
- At sentencing for robbery, the trial court allocated some time to the habitual offender sentence and some as pretrial confinement credit, totaling 53 days (later increased to 55).
- Mwangi argued for 353 days of credit under RSA 651-A:23, asserting he was in custody on the robbery charge from November 11, 2008 to October 29, 2009 and not serving another sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court correctly allocated pretrial credit and time served on the habitual offender sentence | Mwangi contends RSA 651-A:23 requires full credit for time in custody on the robbery charge. | State argues time in state prison during parole violation is time served on the habitual offender sentence and cannot be counted as pretrial credit for robbery. | No due process violation; court properly allocated time as per statute. |
| Whether due process requires a final parole revocation hearing after a felony conviction | Mwangi claims due process requires a revocation hearing to determine identity and to impose RSA 651-A:18 sanctions. | State argues a final revocation hearing is unnecessary once felony conviction mandates parole revocation. | Due process does not require a post-conviction revocation hearing in this context. |
| Whether the defendant's due process rights under the state constitution were violated by the parole-related calculation | Mwangi asserts several due process protections were violated by the recalculation of credits. | State asserts protections were met and no additional hearing was required. | The state constitution permits the calculation without a further revocation hearing; no due process violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Edson, 153 N.H. 45 (2005) (pretrial confinement credit statutory framework)
- Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083 (1982) (due process rights in parole revocation)
- Moody v. Cunningham, 127 N.H. 550 (1986) (due process protections for parole revocation)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (parole revocation procedures require certain safeguards)
- Veale, 158 N.H. 632 (2009) (due process balancing for liberty interests)
- State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226 (1983) (state constitution due process analysis)
- Sneed v. Donahue, 993 F.2d 1239 (1993) (federal due process considerations for parole issues)
- Cornog, 945 F.2d 1504 (1991) (parole revocation and procedures)
- Pickens v. Butler, 814 F.2d 237 (1987) (parole-related due process considerations)
- Boulder v. Parke, 791 S.W.2d 376 (1990) (parole revocation procedures under due process)
- Ringor v. State, 965 P.2d 162 (1998) (parole and revocation considerations in Hawaii)