AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted for the crime of escape after failing to return from a medical furlough granted while awaiting a probation revocation hearing (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued against the district court’s calculation of presentence confinement credit, asserting errors in the calculation (para 1).
• Appellee: The State, by implication, supported the district court's calculation of presentence confinement credit and opposed the Defendant's arguments (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in its calculation of presentence confinement credit for the Defendant (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence entered by the district court (para 3).

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with Shammara H. Henderson and Jane B. Yohalem, JJ., concurring: The Court concluded that the Defendant's confinement was not triggered by her most recent arrest for escape but was a continuation of her confinement under furlough. The Court relied on precedents stating that an inmate remains in the constructive custody of the state during a furlough and that confinement must be triggered by new charges to result in presentence confinement credit. The Defendant's repetition of arguments previously made was not sufficient to meet the burden of pointing out errors in fact or law in the Court's proposed disposition. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's calculation of presentence confinement credit (paras 1-3).