 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Strickland v. State1/5/2005
of imprisonment). We conclude that the sentence of 11 years with 2 years suspended is not clearly mistaken.
Judge Cutler did not err in denying Strickland credit for time served for time he spent on bail In Nygren v. State, this court, relying on former cases decided by the Alaska Supreme Court, concluded that whether a person was to receive credit for time served while released on bail turned on whether the person was "subjected to restrictions approximating those experienced by one who is incarcerated." In Nygren, we set out a description of the types of institutional placements that would normally be considered the equivalent of incarceration:
esidents are invariably there by court order; the facilities require residency, and residency requirements are sufficiently stringent to involve a definite element of confinement; residents of the facilities are subject to twenty-four hour physical custody or supervision; any periods during which residents may be permitted to leave the facility are expressly limited, both as to time and purpose; while in the facility, residents are under a continuing duty to conform their conduct to institutional rules and to obey orders of persons who have immediate custody over them; and residents are subject to sanctions if they violate institutional rules or orders and to arrest if they leave the facility without permission.
One of the requirements to get credit under Nygren is that the restrictions have to be "initiated by specific court order." According to the record in Strickland's case, the court did not order that Strickland be subject to the stringent conditions. Those conditions were imposed by a private bail bondsman. Furthermore, the person monitoring Strickland's release could and did grant permission for Strickland to conduct various activities away from his residence. After hearing the evidence, Judge Cutler concluded that Strickland had not shown that he was sufficiently deprived of his freedom to get credit for time served. But she did suggest that Strickland could file a motion to reconsider if he wanted to put on additional evidence or make further argument that he was entitled to credit for time served. (Apparently Strickland did not do this.)
We conclude that Judge Cutler did not err in denying Strickland credit for time served for the time he spent released on bail. In the first place, it appears that Strickland would not qualify for credit for time served because his restrictions were imposed by a private bail bondsman rather than by the court. Furthermore, Judge Cutler concluded that the restrictions were not sufficiently stringent to require her to give Strickland credit for time served. Strickland has not convinced us that Judge Cutler erred in arriving at this conclusion. Therefore, for both of these reasons, we conclude that Judge Cutler did not err in denying Strickland credit for time served.
Conclusion
We conclude that the sentence which Judge Cutler imposed was not clearly mistaken. We further conclude that Judge Cutler did not err in refusing to give Strickland credit for time served while he was on bail release.
The sentence is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|