NCJ Number
13493
Journal
University of Pennsylvania Law Review Volume: 121 Issue: 5 Dated: (MAY 1973) Pages: 1148-1156
Date Published
1973
Length
9 pages
Annotation
ARGUMENT THAT WHEN A PRISONER IS JAILED FOR A NONBAILABLE OFFENSE AND THEN SENTENCED TO A MAXIMUM TERM, THERE EXISTS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO RECEIVE CREDIT FOR PRESENTENCE INCARCERATION.
Abstract
THE QUESTION WHETHER CREDIT FOR PRESENTENCE CONFINEMENT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED HAS ARISEN INFREQUENTLY FOR TWO REASONS. MANY COURTS HAVE HELD THAT IF THE ACTUAL SENTENCE PLUS PRESENTENCE TIME DOES NOT EXCEED THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM SENTENCE, THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT THE SENTENCING JUDGE GAVE CREDIT FOR THE PRESENTENCE TIME. THUS, ONLY PRISONERS WHOSE COMBINED TIME IN PRISON EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE HAVE HAD STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE DENIAL OF SUCH CREDIT. AND MANY LEGISLATURES HAVE ELIMINATED THE PROBLEM BY EITHER REQUIRING THAT CREDIT BE GIVEN FOR TIME SPENT IN PRETRIAL DETENTION, OR AUTHORIZING SUCH CREDIT AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SENTENCING JUDGE. THERE IS A CLEAR ANALOGY BETWEEN THE PRESENT SITUATION AND THAT OF SUCCESSFUL APPELLANTS WHO SEEK CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED ON THEIR ORIGINAL CONVICTION BEFORE RETRIAL AND RESENTENCING. IN NORTH CAROLINA V. PEARCE THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT FAILURE TO GRANT SUCH CREDIT WOULD CONSTITUTE DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE PROHIBITS MULTIPLE PUNISHMENTS AS WELL AS MULTIPLE CONVICTION FOR THE SAME OFFENSE. THIS GUARANTEE IS VIOLATED 'WHEN PUNISHMENT ALREADY EXACTED FOR AN OFFENSE IS NOT FULLY 'CREDITED' IN IMPOSING SENTENCE UPON A NEW CONVICTION FOR THE SAME OFFENSE'. THE BROAD RATIONALE OF PEARCE REQUIRES THAT FULL CREDIT BE GIVEN IN THE PRESENT SITUATION. IN BOTH, THE STATE HAS EXACTED PUNISHMENT PRIOR TO CONVICTION, IN BOTH, THE PRISONER WILL HAVE SERVED MORE TIME IN PRISON THAN THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM. THE FAILURE TO GRANT CREDIT FOR POST-ARRAIGNMENT PRETRIAL CONFINEMENT IS AS CONSTITUTIONALLY SUSPECT AS THE FAULURE TO GRANT CREDIT FOR TIME SPENT IN JAIL WHILE APPEALING A CONVICTION. DENIAL OF CREDIT FOR PRETRIAL DETENTION MAY CAUSE A CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE CHILLING EFFECT ON SEVERAL OF THE ACCUSED'S RIGHTS INCIDENT TO A FAIR TRIAL. ASSUMING A MAXIMUM SENTENCE, AND NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTRIAL INCARCERATION, FAILURE TO CREDIT THE FORMER RESULTS IN A PERIOD OF CONFINEMENT BEYOND THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM. RECOGNIZING THAT FIXING PENALTIES FOR CRIMINAL ACTS IS A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION, SOME FEDERAL COURTS HAVE HELD SENTENCES BEYOND THE STATUTORY LIMITS CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)