Sentencing; Calculation of jail credit; MCL 769.11b; Comparing People v Givans; Presentence investigation report (PSIR)

Holding that there was an error in the calculation of defendant’s jail credit, the court vacated and remanded for correction of his sentencing credit, and also directed the trial court to amend his PSIR to correct his sentencing date. He pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver meth and possession with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine. The trial court sentenced him to 8 to 20 years and 1 to 20 years, respectively, with 4 days’ jail credit. On appeal, defendant challenged the amount of jail credit he received. The court agreed with the prosecution that he was entitled to 185 days’ jail credit and rejected his claim that he was entitled to 502 days. He was entitled to credit for time served from 12/13/21 to 12/15/21 and 5/23/22 to 5/27/22. Police arrested him on 12/13/21, and he was sentenced to a 365-day jail term in a different case on 12/15/21. After completing that jail term on 5/23/22 “he was held in jail for the instant case until he furnished bond on” 5/27/22. “Because defendant was held in jail on the instant charges, i.e., the offenses of which he was convicted, during the eight days from” 12/13/21 to 12/15/21 and from 12/23/22 to 12/27/22, he “was entitled to sentence credit for those eight days in accordance with MCL 769.11b. However, [he] was not entitled to credit for the time served from” 12/15/21 to 5/23/22. In this “case, as in Givans, [defendant] was not entitled to sentence credit for his time served from” 12/15/21 to 5/23/22 “because he began serving his 365-day jail sentence in a different case on” 12/15/21. “Under the same reasoning, [defendant] was entitled to 177 days’ credit for the time he spent in jail from [3/28/23], when he was arrested in this case and other cases, to [9/20/23] when he was sentenced in” three other matters. “The trial court determined [he] was not entitled to sentence credit for that time period because he had already received a 177-day credit against his sentences imposed on” 9/20/23. He claimed in this case, “and the prosecution agree[d], that the sentence credit” he accrued from 3/28/23 to 9/20/23, “should also apply to this case.” While he was arrested on 3/28/23, “for offenses in multiple cases, one of those cases was the instant case pursuant to the bench warrant.” As such, he “was serving presentence jail time for all the offenses and” his accrued jail credit from 3/28/23 to 9/20/23 “should have been applied to his sentence in this case as it was applied to his sentences in the three other cases.”