Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court considered whether Allen Wray was entitled to credit against his concurrent robbery sentences for time spent incarcerated before trial and sentencing. The court held that he was not entitled to credit for the period after he began serving previously suspended sentences, but was entitled to credit for the earlier period before adjudication as a probation violator. The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions to apply the credit under Rhode Island General Laws § 12-19-2.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Rhode Island General Laws § 12-19-2(a) entitled Wray to credit against his robbery sentences for the period from January 30, 2006, through April 12, 2006, before he was adjudicated a probation violator.
- Whether Wray was entitled to credit against his robbery sentences for the period from April 12, 2006, through April 24, 2009, while he was serving previously suspended sentences and awaiting trial and sentencing on the robbery charges.
- Whether the sentencing justice could impose the robbery sentences without accounting for mandatory statutory credit for qualifying presentence confinement.
Holdings
- A defendant sentenced to concurrent terms is entitled to credit under § 12-19-2(a) against each concurrent sentence for qualifying confinement while awaiting trial or sentencing, even if the same period was also credited against a previously imposed concurrent sentence.
- A defendant is not entitled to credit against a later robbery sentence for time spent serving the execution of previously suspended sentences, even if he was simultaneously awaiting trial and sentencing on the robbery charges.
- The sentencing justice must impose the sentence without regard to whether the defendant was previously confined, and the warden is responsible for calculating and applying the statutory credit under § 12-19-2.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, “the phrase ‘while awaiting trial and while awaiting sentencing’ must be construed as embracing confinement time spent for any reason whatsoever in connection with an offense for which a defendant is subsequently sentenced.”” (101 A.3d at 886)
“In the case of concurrent sentences, however, like the case at bar, this rationale does not obtain.” (101 A.3d at 887)
“Once the sentence is established, “it is for the warden into whose custody the sentenced person is given * * * to apply the provisions of § 12-19-2.”” (101 A.3d at 888)
Factual background
On January 30, 2006, Allen Wray was held without bail on two first-degree robbery charges and was also presented as a probation violator for four previously suspended drug-related sentences. He was adjudicated a probation violator on April 12, 2006, at which point he began serving the previously suspended sentences; he was later convicted of the robbery charges and sentenced on April 24, 2009. The robbery sentences ran concurrently with one another and with the sentences for the prior drug-related charges, and the commitment warrant stated that the robbery sentences began on the sentencing date.
Procedural history
Wray was held without bail after being charged with two counts of first-degree robbery and was also presented as a probation violator on previously suspended drug-related sentences. He was adjudicated a probation violator before being tried and convicted of the robbery charges. After sentencing, he sought credit for pretrial and presentencing confinement; the Superior Court denied the motion. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions.
Remand instructions
The Superior Court must notify the warden of the Adult Correctional Institutions to apply the provisions of § 12-19-2 consistently with the opinion, including credit for the qualifying period from January 30, 2006, through April 12, 2006, against the concurrent robbery sentences.