Opinion
No. A06-2197.
Filed May 29, 2007.
Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, File No. 238365/27J301069514.
Leonardo Castro, Hennepin County Public Defender, Peter W. Gorman, Assistant Public Defender, (for appellant D.C.).
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda K. Jenny, Assistant County Attorney, (for respondent state).
Considered and decided by Stoneburner, Presiding Judge; Dietzen, Judge; and Worke, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
On appeal from an order denying jail credit, appellant argues that the district court erred when it failed to award him jail credit for the 511 days he spent at the Indiana Development Training Center (IDTC). Because we conclude that IDTC is not the functional equivalent of a jail, workhouse, or other correctional facility, we affirm.
DECISION
Appellant D.C. argues that the district court erred in failing to grant him jail credit for the time he spent at the Indiana Development Training Center (IDTC). "The granting of jail credit is not discretionary with the [district] court." State v. Parr, 414 N.W.2d 776, 778 (Minn.App. 1987), review denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 1988). "Awards of jail credit are governed by principles of fairness and equity and must be determined on a case-by-case basis." State v. Arend, 648 N.W.2d 746, 748 (Minn.App. 2002). "A defendant has the burden of establishing that he is entitled to jail credit for a specific period of time." State v. Razmyslowski, 668 N.W.2d 681, 683 (Minn.App. 2003).
"A defendant is entitled to jail credit for `all time spent in custody in connection with the offense or behavioral incident for which sentence is imposed.'" State v. Bradley, 629 N.W.2d 462, 464 (Minn.App. 2001) (quoting Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 4(B)), review denied (Minn. Aug. 15, 2001). In denying appellant's motion for jail credit, the district court concluded that while IDTC controls the movement and activities of persons placed in the unit where appellant was placed, it is not the functional equivalent of a jail. Further, the district court found that IDTC has fewer restrictions than a jail and provides opportunities for residents not generally available to persons incarcerated in jail facilities.
Fairness and equity require that jail credit be granted when a residential-treatment facility is the functional equivalent of a jail, workhouse, or other correctional facility. Asfaha v. State, 665 N.W.2d 523, 528 (Minn. 2003). "[T]he label given a facility is not determinative and district courts must look closely at the facts to determine the level of confinement and limitations imposed on a defendant." Razmyslowski, 668 N.W.2d at 863-84.
In Asfaha, the supreme court concluded that the Intensive Treatment Center program at the Bar-None facility was the functional equivalent of a jail, workhouse, or other correctional facility. Asfaha, 665 N.W.2d at 528. This conclusion was based on the fact that the electronic locks on the doors at the Lakeview unit where Asfaha resided are operated by a central-control-booth operator rather than by keys, there are three locked doors that must be opened by the central-control-booth operator to enter or exit the unit, there is a secure fenced exercise area, there are bars on the windows, surveillance cameras throughout the unit are monitored by the central control booth operator, the "cells" are locked at night and during a crisis, food is served and the classrooms are located within the locked unit, the residents are transported outside the unit in mechanical restraints, and there is an administrative segregation area. Id. at 527.
Likewise, in Razmyslowski, this court concluded that the Intensive Treatment Program for Sexual Aggressives (ITPSA) at the Minnesota Security Hospital was substantially similar to those at the Lakeview unit at the Bar-None facility, and therefore was also the functional equivalent of a jail, workhouse, or correctional facility. Razmyslowski, 668 N.W.2d at 684. This conclusion was based on the fact that ITPSA has a security fence surrounding the facility, there is a central control center that manages the electronic locks on the doors, the facility is entered through a secured gate or sally port door, both the exterior and interior of the facility are monitored continuously by surveillance cameras, there are bars on the windows, the rooms are not locked but monitored on a regular basis, the unit is staffed during the day with a minimum of three or four security staff and one registered nurse, patients are not free to roam the building or grounds without a staff person or "buddy," patients are subjected to frequent pat-down searches as well as room searches, patients are transported outside the unit in mechanical restraints, and there is an escape procedure for the unit. Id.
While IDTC does share some minor similarities with the Lakeview unit at the Bar-None facility and ITPSA, the secure unit at IDTC is not the functional equivalent of a jail, workhouse, or other correctional facilities. At IDTC, the locked doors are manually opened with a key by staff members rather than operated electronically by a central control booth operator. The unit does not have security guards, the windows are shatter-proof, and there are no bars on them. The unit has a fenced recreation area, but the fences are wooden privacy fences rather than security fences, and there is no perimeter security fence. There are surveillance cameras in the unit but they are not monitored continuously. Residents of the unit can also earn privileges such as off-ground activities. During his stay, appellant was allowed to go to the movies, bowling, and an event at Indianapolis Hill. He was also permitted a home visit wherein he flew home unescorted. Based on the record, the district court did not err by finding that the restrictions imposed by IDTC were not the functional equivalent of those imposed at a jail, workhouse, or other correctional facility.