Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendanthearingmotionburden of proofwillprobationrehabilitation

defendanthearingburden of proofprobationrehabilitation

Related Cases

Cue v. State, 663 N.W.2d 637, 2003 ND 97

Facts

Christopher M. Cue was convicted of simple assault of a peace officer and sentenced to two years in prison with 15 days suspended and two years of supervised probation. After multiple violations of probation, including failing to participate in a rehabilitation program, Cue's probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to two years in prison with credit for time served. Cue later sought post-conviction relief, claiming he was entitled to additional credit for time served, which the district court denied after an evidentiary hearing.

[¶ 2] On May 19, 2000, Cue pled guilty to simple assault of a peace officer. The district court sentenced Cue to serve two years in prison with all but 15 days suspended for two years, and placed Cue on supervised probation for two years. On October 30, 2000, Cue's probation officer filed a petition to revoke his probation for violating conditions of probation. The district court ordered Cue's probation revoked on November 30, 2000, and sentenced Cue to prison for two years with two years suspended, conditioned upon Cue being on supervised probation for two years and Cue meaningfully participating in treatment at the Tompkins Rehabilitation and Corrections Unit (“Tompkins”) for a period not to exceed 120 days.

Issue

Did the district court err in denying Cue's motion for post-conviction relief and in its calculation of credit for time served?

[¶ 9] Cue argues the district court erroneously determined he is not entitled to additional credit for time served in connection with the charges in this case. Cue asserts he is entitled to an additional 50 to 54 days of credit for time spent in custody.

Rule

A district court's findings of fact in post-conviction relief proceedings will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. Under N.D.C.C. § 12.1–32–02(2), a defendant is entitled to credit for all time spent in custody as a result of the criminal charge.

[¶ 11] N.D.C.C. § 12.1–32–02 (2) 'requires a court to give a criminal defendant, upon sentencing, credit for all time spent in custody as a result of the criminal charge or conduct for which the sentence is being imposed.'

Analysis

The court found that the district court had properly computed Cue's credit for time served and that Cue had not met his burden of proving he was entitled to additional credit. The evidence presented was conflicting, and the court noted that Cue's arguments regarding the amount of credit he should receive were inconsistent. The district court's conclusion that Cue was not entitled to additional credit was supported by the record.

[¶ 16] We conclude Cue has not affirmatively established by the record that he is entitled to additional credit for time served in this case, and the record does not demonstrate that the district court was clearly erroneous.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order denying Cue's motion for post-conviction relief, concluding that Cue failed to establish his entitlement to additional credit for time served.

[¶ 17] We conclude the district court order made a finding, following an evidentiary hearing, that Cue's credit for time served was properly computed; therefore, Cue is not entitled to a remand under N.D.C.C. § 29–32.1–11. Cue failed to affirmatively establish by the record that he is entitled to additional credit for time served in connection with this case, and the record does not demonstrate that the district court's finding was clearly erroneous. The order of the district court is affirmed.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case because the court found that Cue did not meet his burden of proof regarding additional credit for time served.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

First Interstate Bank of Oregon v. Henson-Hammer, 98 Or.App. 189, 779 P.2d 167

In re Estate of Silsby, 914 A.2d 703, 2006 ME 138

Koester v. Administrator of Estate of Koester, 101 Nev. 68, 693 P.2d 569

In re Marriage of Strobel, 585 S.W.3d 862

Genna v. Harrington, 254 So.2d 525