Jail credit; MCL 769.11b; People v Prieskorn; People v Allen; Mootness

While it rejected the prosecution’s argument that the issue was moot, the court held that defendant was not entitled to additional jail credit. She pled guilty to possession of meth with intent to deliver and was sentenced to 1 to 20 years, with eight days of jail credit. In 2022, she had pled guilty to attempted delivery or manufacture of meth. In 2023, while she was out on bond for that “conviction and before sentencing in that case,” she was arrested and found in possession of meth “and cocaine, which formed the basis for” this case. She was subsequently sentenced to six months to five years in the 2022 case. Arguing for additional jail credit in this case, she asserted “her parole-eligibility date should be treated as her release date for purposes of jail credit” and that she was entitled to four months of credit. She also contended that if trial counsel had moved to revoke her bond in this “case, the trial court could have denied bond, thereby permitting her to accrue jail credit pursuant to MCL 769.11b.” The court found her arguments lacked merit. “Parole eligibility does not equate to a right to release, and prisoners have no constitutional or inherent right to parole.” Thus, her eligibility date for parole “did not constitute a release date, and because parole was denied, defendant remained incarcerated pursuant to her” sentence for the 2022 case. “The fact that the parole board would not have released her until” this case was resolved did “not convert her incarceration for the 2022 case into custody attributable to” this case. The court noted that those “detained for reasons other than the denial of or inability to furnish bond are not entitled to jail credit.” The trial court did not have to grant her jail credit “because she was not being held in jail for the offense of which she was ultimately convicted in the instant case, nor was she denied or unable to furnish bond.”