State v. Webb
1 CA-CR 16-0497
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jun 13, 2017Background
- Carlos Leaudre Webb was convicted of attempted second-degree murder (count 1), kidnapping (count 2), and two counts of aggravated assault (counts 3 and 5).
- Original sentencing imposed consecutive aggravated terms on counts 1 and 2 and concurrent sentences on counts 3 and 5; Webb appealed (Webb I).
- This court in Webb I affirmed convictions and the sentence on count 5 but vacated and remanded counts 1–3 for resentencing.
- On remand the trial court resentenced Webb (aggravated 20 years on count 1; 18 years on count 2; presumptive terms on counts 3 and 5) and awarded 1526 days of presentence incarceration credit on counts 1 and 3.
- Webb appealed the resentencing, arguing the court miscalculated presentence credit and wrongly designated count 5 as a dangerous offense without a jury finding.
- The State conceded the presentence credit calculation was off by one day (actual custody was 1527 days); the court modified the minute entry to award 1527 days and otherwise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presentence incarceration credit calculation | Webb: court failed to award correct days of credit (should reflect actual days in custody). | State conceded error; record shows custody was 1527 days. | Modified minute entry to award 1527 days total credit; affirmed otherwise. |
| Dangerous-offense designation for count 5 without jury finding | Webb: designation invalid because no jury found dangerousness. | State: issue previously litigated/affirmed in Webb I; not remanded so court lacks jurisdiction to revisit. | Court declined to consider the claim as beyond scope of remand and affirmed prior disposition. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McClure, 189 Ariz. 55 (App. 1997) (when consecutive sentences imposed, defendant receives presentence incarceration credit applied to total sentence but not repeated on multiple consecutive terms)
- State v. Stevens, 173 Ariz. 494 (App. 1992) (appellate courts may correct presentence incarceration credit without remand)
- State v. Hartford, 145 Ariz. 403 (App. 1985) (issues not within scope of remand are not revisitable on resentencing)
- State v. Schackart, 190 Ariz. 238 (1997) (same principle limiting scope of remand and reconsideration of issues previously affirmed)
- State v. Nordstrom, 230 Ariz. 110 (2012) (after convictions affirmed on appeal, trial court lacks jurisdiction on remand to reconsider validity of those convictions)