Susan Scheerer v. State of Arizona, 281 P.3d 491

Scheerer pleaded guilty in justice court July 6, 2011 to extreme DUI under A.R.S. § 28-1382(A)(2).
She received unsupervised probation for 12 months and a sentence of 180 days in jail, with 135 suspended, 2 days actual incarceration, and 43 days to be served via home detention supervised by SIS.
The justice court ordered two days of incarceration starting July 11 and completion of 43 days home detention by October 28.
On July 8, 2011 the State appealed as illegally lenient, arguing the sentence violated § 28-1382(D)(1).
Scheerer reported for the two days of incarceration and completed the 43 days of home detention (by August 31) before the State’s appeal was resolved.
The trial judge remanded to the justice court with instructions to impose a lawful sentence and stated that no credit would be given for any time spent in home detention.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether home detention was a legally authorized sentence	Scheerer argues the home detention was illegal because no county program existed.	State contends the sentence was illegally lenient and subject to remand for proper sentencing.	Yes; home detention was not authorized in Pima County.
Whether the State's appeal was moot after completion of sentence	Scheerer asserts mootness; completion renders appeal unnecessary.	State maintains appeal remains proper to correct illegality.	No; the appeal was proper to correct illegal sentencing.
Credit for time served on remand sentence	Scheerer should receive credit for time served (jail and home detention) against any new jail term.	State argues no credit against a new jail term since time served was under an illegal home-detention order.	Scheerer is entitled to credit for time served against the new jail term on remand.
Avoiding double punishment for same offense	Completion of sentence should prevent additional punishment for same offense.	No double jeopardy violation if time served is properly credited.	No double jeopardy; credit resolves potential double-counting.

State ex rel. McDougall v. Riddel, 169 Ariz. 117, 817 P.2d 62 (App. 1991) (special action review of superior court on appeal from court of limited jurisdiction)
State v. Vargas-Burgos, 162 Ariz. 325, 783 P.2d 264 (App. 1989) (sentence must be authorized by statute; home detention exception)
Hartford, State v. Hartford, 145 Ariz. 403, 701 P.2d 1211 (App. 1985) (mootness when entire sentence served; distinction from pending appeal on illegal sentence)
Schwichtenberg v. State, 190 Ariz. 574, 951 P.2d 449 (1997) (credit for time at liberty when released in error; installment theory)
Johnson, State v. Johnson, 105 Ariz. 21, 458 P.2d 955 (1969) (punishment already exacted must be credited against new sentence)
Litak v. Scott, 138 Ariz. 599, 676 P.2d 631 (1984) (appeal authority over illegal sentence)