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 found guilty of aggravated driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and/or drugs and failure to maintain traffic lane. Subsequently, the Defendant was sentenced to eighteen months of imprisonment, with twelve months suspended and the remaining six months to be served under probation. The Defendant had also been on house arrest and under electronic monitoring via an ankle bracelet for nine hundred and two days prior to sentencing, for which he sought presentence confinement credit.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the sentence failed to give him credit for the nine hundred and two days he had been on house arrest and under electronic monitoring with an ankle bracelet.
• Appellee (State): Conceded that the district court erred by not granting the Defendant presentence confinement credit for the time spent on house arrest and on the electronic monitoring ankle bracelet.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant is entitled to presentence confinement credit for the time spent under house arrest and on an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet.

Disposition

• The district court’s sentence is reversed, and the case is remanded to the district court to re-sentence the Defendant with presentence confinement credit for the time he was under house arrest and on an ankle bracelet.

Reasons

• Per WECHSLER, J. (with CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, and LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring): The court agreed with both parties that the Defendant should receive presentence confinement credit for the time spent on house arrest and under electronic monitoring. This decision was supported by the precedent set in State v. Foster, State v. Fellhauer, State v. Guillen, and State v. Duhon, which collectively establish that time spent under house arrest and on electronic monitoring can count towards presentence confinement credit if certain conditions are met. The Defendant’s release conditions met the requirements set forth in these cases, as it was judicially approved and subject to defined procedures and conditions, thereby entitling him to the credit sought.