State v. Wines, 954 N.W.2d 893

Kevin M. Wines was convicted in a 2016 case (delivery and attempted delivery of a controlled substance), placed on probation, later revoked, and originally sentenced to indeterminate terms; the district court initially awarded 30 days’ credit for the 2016 case.
Separately, Wines pleaded no contest in a 2018 case to multiple offenses and was sentenced in 2019 to several terms ordered concurrent with the 2016 sentences; the district court awarded 14 days’ credit in the 2018 case.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals found plain error, vacated certain indeterminate sentences in both cases, and remanded for imposition of determinate sentences.
At resentencing in May 2020 the district court awarded Wines 481 days’ credit (30 prior days + 451 days between the 2019 sentencing and 2020 resentencing) to a 4-year 2016 sentence, but awarded only the prior 14 days’ credit to one 2018 sentence and left other 2018 sentences as previously sentenced.
Wines appealed, arguing he was entitled to have the same 451 days of custody credit applied to his 2018 sentences that were concurrent with the 2016 sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the same period of custody credit (the 451 days between initial sentencing and resentencing) must be applied to multiple concurrent sentences	The State: credit for a single period of custody is applied once; district court appropriately applied the 451 days to the 2016 sentence only	Wines: the 451 days should also be applied to his 2018 sentences (in addition to the small prior credits) because he was in custody pending appeal and pending sentence in both cases	Court: affirmed — credit need not be applied separately to the 2018 sentences; district court did not err in its allocation of credit
Whether § 83-1,106(3) authorized the district court to award additional credit after the Court of Appeals vacated some sentences but left others intact	The State: if § 83-1,106(3) were implicated, § 83-1,106(5)(b) requires the court that set aside the sentence (i.e., the appellate court) to enter such credit; district court therefore lacked authority to award credit under (3)	Wines: § 83-1,106(3) supports awarding the resentencing-period credit to the remaining 2018 sentences	Court: even assuming (3) applied, (5)(b) restricts awarding such credit to the court that set aside the sentence; district court did not err by declining to award credit under (3)

State v. Banes, 268 Neb. 805, 688 N.W.2d 594 (Neb. 2004) (same period of custody credit for concurrent sentences is applied once, not duplicated across concurrent sentences)
State v. Phillips, 302 Neb. 686, 924 N.W.2d 699 (Neb. 2019) (standard of review for credit-for-time-served and statutory interpretation)
State v. Sanchez, 2 Neb. App. 1008, 520 N.W.2d 33 (Neb. Ct. App. 1994) (credit-for-time-served principles for concurrent sentences)