State v. Clarkin
2012 WL 3101663, 2012 Minn. LEXIS 382, 817 N.W.2d 678 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant is entitled to jail credit for time spent in custody on an unrelated offense only when the State has completed its investigation without suggesting manipulation, and has both probable cause and sufficient evidence to prosecute the defendant with a reasonable likelihood of conviction for the offense for which credit is sought.
Facts:
- In April 2008, Matthew James Clarkin was released from prison after serving a sentence for second-degree assault against his former girlfriend, S.A.S., with conditions including an Order for Protection (OFP) against S.A.S.
- In May 2008, an arrest warrant was issued for Clarkin due to violations of his supervised release conditions, including failure to participate in programming and use of intoxicants.
- On July 5, 2008, S.A.S.'s home, garage, and motorcycle were spray-painted with expletives, and S.A.S. and the motorcycle owner suspected Clarkin.
- On July 12, 2008, S.A.S.'s father's home was spray-painted with similar graffiti, which police noted matched the style of the July 5 incident, and the father also suspected Clarkin.
- On July 13, 2008, police arrested Clarkin on the outstanding warrant for his supervised release violation, finding two spray paint cans hidden at the arrest location.
- From July 13, 2008, to February 19, 2009, Clarkin remained in custody; no graffiti incidents were reported by S.A.S. or her family during this period.
- Between April 2009 and November 2009, police responded to or identified 11 additional incidents of matching graffiti or potential OFP violations at the homes of S.A.S., her father, her brother, and S.A.S.'s workplace.
- On September 6, 2009, S.A.S.'s brother's surveillance camera recorded a man identified as Clarkin spray-painting his garage.
Procedural Posture:
- Police arrested Matthew James Clarkin on July 13, 2008, on an outstanding warrant for violating the terms of his supervised release.
- Clarkin remained in custody at the Hennepin County Jail and then the Minnesota Correctional Facility at Lino Lakes from July 13, 2008, through February 19, 2009, for the parole violation.
- The State filed a complaint against Clarkin on November 24, 2009, charging him with multiple counts of felony harassment/stalking and felony violation of an order for protection (OFP).
- Clarkin was arrested again on December 7, 2009, on these new charges.
- On March 2, 2010, Clarkin pleaded guilty to one count of felony harassment/stalking (arising from the July 5, 2008 incident) as part of a negotiated plea agreement.
- At sentencing on March 29, 2010, the district court implicitly denied Clarkin's request for 231 days of jail credit for time served between July 13, 2008, and February 19, 2009, but awarded 113 days of credit for his subsequent custody.
- Clarkin filed a notice of appeal with the Minnesota Court of Appeals, followed by a motion to stay his appeal and remand for postconviction proceedings, which was granted.
- The postconviction court denied Clarkin's petition for relief, concluding he was in custody for an 'unrelated probation violation' and the State did not acquire probable cause for the harassment/stalking charge until September 6, 2009.
- Clarkin appealed the postconviction order to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, and these appeals were consolidated.
- The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of jail credit in a published opinion, holding that Clarkin was not entitled to credit because his sentences would have been presumptively consecutive, making the time served ineligible for credit, regardless of when probable cause arose.
- Clarkin filed a petition for review with the Minnesota Supreme Court, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a criminal defendant qualify for jail credit for time spent in custody on an unrelated offense when the State had only probable cause to charge the offense for which credit is sought, or must the State have also completed its investigation and possess sufficient evidence for a reasonable likelihood of conviction, absent prosecutorial manipulation, for such credit to be awarded?
Opinions:
Majority - ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice.
No, a criminal defendant is not entitled to jail credit for time spent in custody on an unrelated offense based merely on the State having probable cause for the offense for which credit is sought; instead, the State must have completed its investigation and possess sufficient evidence for a reasonable likelihood of conviction, absent prosecutorial manipulation. The court first addressed the court of appeals' decision, which denied Clarkin credit because his sentences were presumptively consecutive. The court found this erroneous because, under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, a concurrent sentence is presumptive if it results in a longer total prison time, which was the case here (35 months concurrent vs. 23 months plus 222 days consecutive). Additionally, failure to specify consecutive sentencing means the sentence is concurrent. The court then explicitly declined to adopt the court of appeals' 'probable cause' test for jail credit, which had been articulated in State v. Fritzke. Instead, it reaffirmed the principles outlined in State v. Folley, establishing a higher standard for awarding jail credit in such circumstances. The court reasoned that a mere probable-cause test creates an undesirable incentive for the State to prematurely charge defendants before a thorough investigation is complete, potentially compromising the quality of the charging decision. Applying the refined Folley rule, the court concluded Clarkin was not entitled to jail credit because the State did not complete its investigation of the harassment/stalking charges until November 24, 2009, well after he was released from custody for the parole violation. The court found no evidence of prosecutorial manipulation, citing the complexity of the investigation involving multiple police departments and incidents across different cities, and the fact that Clarkin's plea was to an incident that occurred before his custody period.
Concurring - MEYER, Justice
While agreeing with the ultimate result that Clarkin is not entitled to jail credit, Justice Meyer disagreed with the majority's legal test, arguing that the court should adopt the 'probable cause' test from State v. Fritzke. Justice Meyer contended that the Fritzke probable-cause rule, which awards jail credit for time spent in custody (even on unrelated charges) from the date the State acquires probable cause, is a predictable and fair standard that has been applied by the court of appeals for nearly two decades. This rule, Meyer asserted, better checks prosecutorial manipulation by preventing delays in completing investigations to avoid jail credit and ensures a consistent standard for charging behavior. Justice Meyer noted that the Folley principles themselves implicitly rested on the notion of probable cause existing. However, applying the Fritzke probable-cause rule to the facts of this case, Justice Meyer concluded that the postconviction court's factual finding that probable cause to charge Clarkin with harassment/stalking did not arise until September 6, 2009 (when video surveillance provided a positive identification) was not clearly erroneous. Since this date was well after Clarkin's release from his parole violation custody, even under the probable-cause test, Clarkin would not be entitled to the requested jail credit.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and elevates the standard for awarding jail credit in Minnesota when a defendant is held for an unrelated offense. By rejecting the simpler 'probable cause' test in favor of a stricter 'completed investigation and reasonable likelihood of conviction' standard, the Supreme Court aims to discourage premature charging decisions by prosecutors. This decision shifts the burden more heavily onto the defendant to demonstrate not just the existence of probable cause, but also that the State had a strong, prosecutable case at the time of the prior custody, while also ensuring the State's investigation was not manipulated. This could lead to fewer successful jail credit claims in cases involving complex or ongoing investigations that span across different charges or jurisdictions.
