State v. Roy
928 N.W.2d 341 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is not entitled to custody credit against a Minnesota sentence for time spent in the custody of a separate sovereign nation if the Minnesota offense was not the sole reason for the defendant's detention in that other jurisdiction.
Facts:
- In 2011, Misty Kay Roy sold Oxycodone to a confidential informant in Beltrami County.
- The Beltrami County District Court convicted Roy of third-degree controlled-substance crime but stayed imposition of sentence and placed her on 20 years of probation.
- On July 15, 2017, while still on probation for her Minnesota offense, Roy was charged in Red Lake Tribal Court with two gross misdemeanors committed on the Red Lake Reservation.
- On September 14, 2017, Roy's corrections agent filed a probation-violation report based on her Red Lake convictions, alleging she failed to remain law-abiding.
- Roy was sentenced in Red Lake Tribal Court on October 5, 2017, and began serving her sentence at the Red Lake Detention Center on October 22, 2017.
- Roy was released directly from the Red Lake Detention Center to Beltrami County custody on November 12, 2017.
Procedural Posture:
- Misty Kay Roy pleaded guilty in Beltrami County District Court to third-degree controlled-substance crime in 2011.
- The district court stayed imposition of her sentence and placed her on probation for 20 years.
- Roy was convicted of two gross misdemeanors in Red Lake Tribal Court in 2017.
- On September 15, 2017, the Beltrami County District Court revoked the stay of imposition of sentence for Roy's 2011 conviction.
- Roy requested the Beltrami County District Court to grant her custody credit for the time she served in the Red Lake Detention Center against her Minnesota sentence.
- The Beltrami County District Court denied Roy credit for the time served in Red Lake detention, stating that Red Lake is a sovereign nation and credit could not be extended.
- Roy appealed the district court's decision to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
- The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Roy was not entitled to credit because the time was not served solely in connection with a Minnesota offense.
- Roy filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
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 defendant receive custody credit against a Minnesota sentence for time spent in the custody of the Red Lake Nation when the Minnesota conviction was not the sole reason for the Red Lake custody?
Opinions:
Majority - Hudson, Justice
No, a defendant does not receive custody credit against a Minnesota sentence for time spent in the custody of the Red Lake Nation when the Minnesota conviction was not the sole reason for that custody. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the Red Lake Nation is an independent sovereign nation, making the interjurisdictional custody credit rule applicable. Under this rule, a defendant can only receive credit if the time was served solely in connection with the Minnesota offense. Since Roy's time in the Red Lake Detention Center was in connection with her two Red Lake convictions, the Minnesota conviction could not have been the sole reason for her detention. The court rejected Roy's arguments to apply the intrajurisdictional rule factors (like avoiding de facto consecutive sentences) to interjurisdictional custody and found that State v. Wakefield, which dealt with concurrent/consecutive sentencing, was not applicable to custody credit calculations, especially since Roy was not subject to another sentence when her Minnesota sentence was imposed.
Concurring - Thissen, Justice
Yes, I concur that Misty Roy is not entitled to jail credit for the time spent in the custody of the Red Lake Nation because that time was not "in connection with" her 2011 third-degree controlled-substance conviction. However, I write separately to clarify what the court is not deciding. Minnesota's jail credit jurisprudence has evolved beyond a narrow "in connection with" standard to include preventing de facto consecutive sentences and ensuring proportionality, especially with the adoption of sentencing guidelines. The rigid dichotomy between interjurisdictional and intrajurisdictional rules, particularly when considering proportionality and fundamental fairness, is unsupportable. While State v. Wakefield suggests a presumption of concurrent sentences even with federal offenses, implying credit for time served on those offenses, the specific facts of this case (lack of information about the Red Lake conviction or sentence) prevent a full exploration of whether denying credit here creates a de facto consecutive sentence or an upward departure from sentencing guidelines. Therefore, based solely on the "in connection with" test as the only properly presented issue, I concur with the majority.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the strict application of Minnesota's interjurisdictional custody credit rule, distinguishing it sharply from intrajurisdictional credit. It clarifies that Red Lake Nation is treated as a separate sovereign jurisdiction for these purposes, preventing credit for time served on tribal offenses unless the Minnesota offense was the sole reason for detention. The concurrence highlights a potential tension in Minnesota's broader jail credit jurisprudence, suggesting that a future case with more complete facts about the out-of-state/tribal sentence might lead the court to re-examine the interjurisdictional rule in light of evolving principles of proportionality and fairness, particularly regarding de facto consecutive sentences.
