Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0335
03-28-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. CURTIS ANTHONY PATTERSON, Appellant.
COUNSEL Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel By Kathryn A. Damstra, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Erin E. Duffy, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e).
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20141314002
The Honorable Javier Chon-Lopez, Judge
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
COUNSEL
Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General
Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel
By Kathryn A. Damstra, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson
Counsel for Appellee
Erin E. Duffy, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Espinosa concurred.
EPPICH, Judge:
¶1 Curtis Patterson appeals from the trial court's imposition of sentence on his convictions for robbery. Because we agree that the trial court erred in calculating Patterson's presentence incarceration credit, we order the sentences modified.
¶2 After a jury trial, Patterson was convicted of illegally conducting an enterprise and two counts of robbery. The trial court imposed enhanced, concurrent ten-year prison terms. This court affirmed his conviction and sentence for illegally conducting an enterprise, but modified his convictions on the robbery counts, reducing them to category-four felonies and ordering resentencing. State v. Patterson, No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0441, ¶ 17 (Ariz. App. Aug. 31, 2015) (mem. decision).
¶3 Patterson was resentenced in February 2016, and the trial court imposed concurrent, aggravated 7.5-year prison terms. The court credited him with 691 days of presentence incarceration. Patterson requested and was granted a delayed appeal, and this appeal followed.
¶4 On appeal, Patterson contends the trial court "committed fundamental error in granting only 691 days of presentence incarceration credit." Because Patterson did not object to the court's grant of credit, we review solely for fundamental error. See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶¶ 19-20 (2005). Failure to grant a defendant credit for all time spent in custody before sentencing is such error. State v. Cofield, 210 Ariz. 84, ¶ 10 (App. 2005).
¶5 The state concedes the trial court erred in calculating Patterson's incarceration credit. Patterson was arrested on February 19, 2014. Adult probation services calculated his credit as of January 11, 2016, the date originally set for resentencing, as 691 days. The resentencing hearing, however, was continued until February 24, 2016. Thus, the original calculation, on which the court apparently relied, was incorrect. We agree
with the parties that, based on Patterson's arrest date and the intervening calculations of his credit, he is entitled to 735 days of presentence incarceration credit. See A.R.S. § 13-712.
¶6 We order Patterson's sentence modified to include 735 days of presentence incarceration credit and otherwise affirm. See State v. Nevarez, 178 Ariz. 525, 528 (App. 1993).