State v. Wines, 308 Neb. 468

Kevin M. Wines pleaded guilty in a 2016 case to delivery and attempted delivery of a controlled substance; he was given probation and a short jail term, later had probation revoked and in Feb 2019 was sentenced to 4–8 years and 1–2 years (consecutive) with 30 days credit.
In a separate 2018 case Wines pled no contest to several charges and in Feb 2019 received multiple terms (including 2–3 years, 1–2 years, and several 6‑month and 1‑year terms), ordered concurrent with the 2016 sentences, with 14 days credit awarded for the 2018 case.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals found plain error as to certain sentences in both cases, vacated those sentences, and remanded for imposition of determinate sentences.
At resentencing in May 2020 Wines and the State agreed Wines had served 451 days in custody between the Feb 2019 sentencing and May 2020 resentencing; Wines also had a prior 30‑day credit in the 2016 case and 14 days previously credited in the 2018 case.
The district court applied the 451 days (plus the earlier 30 days) to Wines’ 4‑year 2016 sentence (total credited 481 days) but left the 14 days credit in the 2018 case unchanged; Wines appealed the district court’s refusal to apply the same 451‑day period to additional 2018 sentences.

Issue	State's Argument	Wines' Argument	Held
Whether Wines was entitled to have the same 451 days of custody credit (time between initial sentencing and resentencing) applied to multiple concurrent sentences in the 2018 case in addition to the 2016 sentence	Credit for a single period of custody is applied once and the district court properly applied the 451 days to the 2016 sentence; it need not and should not duplicate the same credit across concurrent sentences	The 451 days spent in custody pending appeal/resentencing should be credited to the 2018 sentences as well (in addition to the 14 days already credited), so the same custody period can be applied to multiple concurrent sentences	Court affirmed: district court did not err. Under § 83‑1,106 and controlling precedent, the district court’s award was proper; additional credit to the 2018 sentences was unavailable from the district court (and, as to certain claims under § 83‑1,106(3), any credit could only have been entered by the court that set aside the sentences)

State v. Banes, 268 Neb. 805, 688 N.W.2d 594 (2004) (credit for the same custody period is applied once; Court rejected applying identical custody credit separately to multiple concurrent sentences)
State v. Phillips, 302 Neb. 686, 924 N.W.2d 699 (2019) (standards for appellate review of credit-for-time-served and statutory interpretation)
Parks v. Hy‑Vee, 307 Neb. 927, 951 N.W.2d 504 (2020) (statutory language must be given its plain and ordinary meaning)
Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., 306 Neb. 947, 947 N.W.2d 731 (2020) (every part of a statute should be given effect when possible)
State v. Sanchez, 2 Neb. App. 1008, 520 N.W.2d 33 (1994) (concurrent-sentence credit principles)