 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Mathieu8/2/1990
This appeal addresses whether an offender of the driving while intoxicated statute,
A.R.S. § 28-692.02, is entitled to receive presentence incarceration credit against time served in prison as a condition of probation. We hold that such credit is required.
FACTS
The defendant was indicted on two felony DWI charges in January 1987. He was arrested pursuant to the indictment on May 23, 1987, and bond was set at $1370. Because the defendant was indigent, he was unable to post bond. He remained in custody for 76 days, until he was released by court order to a third party custodian.
The defendant entered into a written plea agreement whereby he agreed to plead guilty to one count of felony DWI. In exchange, he was to receive three years probation with a mandatory six months flat time in prison as required by A.R.S. § 28-692.02. This plea was later accepted. However, defendant failed to appear at his sentencing hearing, and was arrested again on February 20, 1988. He then withdrew his original plea and entered into a new plea agreement with essentially the same terms. The court accepted the plea. The defendant remained in jail until sentencing, an additional 74 days. At sentencing, the defendant urged the court to credit the 150 days of presentence incarceration against his six months probationary prison term. The court declined to do so.
ISSUES
1. Is this appeal moot because the defendant has already served the prison time?
2. Was the defendant denied equal protection when the trial court refused to give him credit for the 76 days spent in pretrial custody because he was unable to post bond?
3. Was the defendant entitled under A.R.S. § 13-709(B) to credit for all 150 days of presentence incarceration?
MOOTNESS
The decision in this case will not affect the defendant because he has already served his time with the Department of Corrections. We nevertheless resolve the question presented because it is an issue of statutory interpretation that "threatens to evade review as a result of the relative brevity of the sentences imposed under the statute." State v. Clements, 161 Ariz. 123, 124, 776 P.2d 801, 802 (App.1989); State v. Sirny, 160 Ariz. 292, 293, 772 P.2d 1145, 1146 (App.1989).
EQUAL PROTECTION
The defendant argues that he has been denied equal protection because he has been treated differently than others similarly situated. He points out that indigent defendants, unable to post bond and ordered to serve prison time as a condition of probation, will, if they successfully complete probation, serve more time in custody than defendants who are able to post bond and receive the same probationary prison term.
This court held in State v. Sutton, 21 Ariz. App. 550, 521 P.2d 1008 (1974), that if the defendant's presentence incarceration was the result of his inability to make bail, credit was constitutionally mandated against his prison sentence under the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. However, that opinion tacitly limited its holding to circumstances where the presentence incarceration time added to the sentence imposed exceeded the maximum allowable sentence.
The Arizona Supreme Court agreed with this limitation on the reach of equal protection in State v. Gray, 122 Ariz. 445, 595 P.2d 990 (1979). In that case, the defen
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|