State v. Hurdle

Summary

The court held that the presentence-confinement-credit statute does not give the commissioner exclusive authority to determine and apply credit. A sentencing court may, within statutory limits, direct the commissioner through the judgment mittimus to apply specified qualifying confinement dates, so the case was remanded for the trial court to exercise that discretion. The court also held that the plea agreement contained no promise of credit for time served on unrelated sentences and that the defendant's contrary subjective belief did not invalidate the plea.