Jail credit; MCL 769.11b; People v Patton; People v Allen; People v Seiders; Due process; North Carolina v Pearce; Fairness; People v Adkins

Holding that defendant received the amount of jail credit to which he was entitled, the court affirmed. He was charged in two separate cases (Case 1 and Case 2). This appeal concerned Case 2. In Case 1, he pled no contest as a second habitual offender to CSC IV. In Case 2, he pled guilty to delivery of marijuana to a minor, “as a second habitual offender. In exchange for his pleas, defendant received a Cobbs evaluation providing for a minimum-term cap of 18 months’ imprisonment and was sentenced accordingly. [He] received 55 days of jail credit in Case 1 and” 4 days’ credit in Case 2. He asserted “that he should have received 57 days of jail credit in Case 2.” The court disagreed. As to his argument under MCL 769.11b, he was held in jail from 2/8/24 to sentencing on 4/1/24 “only because his bond was revoked in Case 1. His bond in Case 2 remained outstanding because, as the trial court explained during sentencing, ‘[t]here has to be a request made of the Court to revoke bond,’ which did not occur in Case 2. Thus, when defendant was held in jail during this 53-day time period, he only was held because of being ‘unable to furnish bond’ in Case 1.” As a result, the trial court correctly found that he was only “entitled to the additional 53 days of jail credit in Case 1, not Case 2, pursuant to MCL 769.11b.” While he noted “that bond could have been revoked in Case 2 when it was revoked in Case 1” or shortly after, “that observation does not compel a different result.” Because he “only had his bond revoked in Case 1, it follows that he was incarcerated during the time period in question only because of Case 1. Case 2 is, essentially, an ‘unrelated reason’ why [he] was incarcerated.” As to his due process argument, as he “actually received 53 days of jail credit in Case 1, he was not wholesale deprived of jail credit notwithstanding his actual incarceration during the time period in question.” Lastly, relying on footnote 10 in Adkins, he asserted “the trial court should have granted him an additional 53 days of jail credit in Case 2 ‘as a matter of fairness.’” However, the court noted that “Adkins does not permit a trial court to actually award additional jail credit contrary to the terms of MCL 769.11b.” It instead indicated “a trial court may sentence a defendant to a lesser term to compensate for any perceived unfairness or inequity with the lack of jail credit in that case.” But it did “not suggest that such a result is required.”