v. People, 2019 CO 96

In Oct 2013 Fransua was arrested on charges arising from unlawfully entering and assaulting his ex‑girlfriend ("first case"); he posted bond and was released.
In Mar 2014 Fransua was arrested again for entering the same home; charged in a "second case" and could not post bond, resulting in confinement from Mar 1 to Jun 16, 2014 (108 days).
Fransua’s bond in the first case was never revoked or modified during that 108‑day period; the confinement was attributable to the second case charges (including trespass).
On Jun 16, 2014 the second case was dismissed as part of a plea to attempted second‑degree burglary in the first case; Fransua received a community‑corrections sentence, later escaped, and was resentenced to DOC.
At resentencing Fransua sought 245 days of presentence confinement credit (PSCC); the district court awarded 162 days, excluding the 108 days he served on the second case. The court of appeals affirmed exclusion but held PSCC includes both first and last days of confinement.
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari and (1) affirmed that time confined solely on an unrelated second case is not PSCC for the first case, and (2) held PSCC includes both the first and last days of confinement.

Issue	Fransua's Argument	People’s Argument	Held
Whether confinement in a second case while out on bond in a first case can be credited as PSCC in the first case	Time confined after arrest on the second case should count toward PSCC in the first case	PSCC in the first case should exclude time confined solely for charges in a separate case	No — PSCC requires a substantial nexus to the sentence; confinement attributable solely to the second case is not creditable in the first case
Whether the general time‑computation rule (exclude first day, include last) applies to PSCC	PSCC should include every calendar day of confinement (including first and last)	The general rule excludes the first day so PSCC should exclude it	PSCC covers the “entire period of such confinement,” so both first and last days must be included
Whether a challenge to the amount of PSCC is a Rule 35(a) claim that the sentence was not authorized by law	PSCC amount can be challenged as a sentence not authorized by law	PSCC is part of sentencing and can be challenged under Rule 35(a)	The Court (in this opinion, consistent with its companion Baker) explains PSCC is not a component of the sentence for Rule 35(a) purposes; Fransua’s PSCC challenge was properly considered on direct appeal

Schubert v. People, 698 P.2d 788 (Colo. 1985) (establishes requirement of a substantial nexus between confinement and the charge/sentence to obtain PSCC)
People v. Houston, 411 P.3d 808 (Colo. App. 2014) (PSCC entitlement reviewed de novo)
People v. Steen, 318 P.3d 487 (Colo. 2014) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)