Accrual of Credit for Time Served: Jurisdiction-Dependent Credit in Multi-Case Proceedings

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Montana’s decision in State of Montana v. William James Pillans (2025 MT 100) addresses how sentencing courts must calculate credit for time a defendant spends in custody when multiple overlapping cases and bench warrants are involved. William James Pillans faced three separate case numbers (DC-18-098, DC-18-298, DC-18-329) arising from distinct incidents between February 2018 and August 2018. After entering plea agreements and receiving concurrent five-year sentences—each suspended—Pillans’s supervision was repeatedly revoked and restored following new arrests and bench warrants. He ultimately received a final revocation and a five-year unsuspended sentence. On appeal, Pillans challenged the manner in which the District Court calculated (1) “time served” credit and (2) “elapsed time” (street time) credit under Montana statutes.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice James Jeremiah Shea, writing for a unanimous bench, held that:

The court must grant credit for days during which the sentencing court had jurisdiction and the defendant was detained under that case’s “detainer” or warrant, not from the date of an unrelated arrest.
Pillans was entitled to additional credit for days improperly omitted or miscounted by the District Court in all three cases.
The District Court’s denial of certain “elapsed time” credits failed to cite “specific violations” in probation records as required by statute, entitling Pillans to further street-time credit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded with precise recalculations of time served and elapsed time credits for each of the three case numbers.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

State v. Risher (2024 MT 309): Established that credit for time served begins when the sentencing court gains jurisdiction and the defendant is detained pursuant to that jurisdiction.
State v. Crazymule (2024 MT 58): Confirmed de novo review of credit calculations and clarified that credit accrual events include arrests on warrants issued in the case.
State v. Spagnolo (2022 MT 228): Recognized that initial arrest date can trigger credit accrual when directly tied to the sentencing case.
Killam v. Salmonsen (2021 MT 196): Held that credit calculations must be based on the record of the sentencing case alone, excluding other incarcerations.
State v. Lane (1998 MT 76): Confirmed that, when written judgment conflicts with oral pronouncement, the oral sentence controls.
State v. Jardee (2020 MT 81) & State v. Gudmundsen (2022 MT 178): Interpreted § 46-18-203(7)(b) MCA to require specific documented violations before denying elapsed time (street time) credit.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning rests on three Montana statutes:

§ 46-18-403(1)(a) MCA – Credit for pre-conviction incarceration on a bailable offense up to the length of the sentence imposed.
§ 46-18-201(9) MCA – Mandatory credit for time served “before trial or sentencing” in the sentencing case.
§ 46-18-203(7)(b) MCA – Upon revocation of a suspended or deferred sentence, the court must credit detention time and consider all street time without violations.

Key holdings:

Credit “begins to accrue” when the court gains jurisdiction over the offender in that case and the offender is detained pursuant to that case’s warrant or detainer. Arrests on unrelated charges do not trigger credit in a given case.
The sentencing court may not look outside the record of the case before it when calculating credit.
To deny “elapsed time” credit for days the offender was at liberty, the court must cite “specific violations” from probation/parole officer records for that period.

Impact

This decision:

Clarifies and unifies the accrual standard for sentencing credit across Montana’s trial and appellate bench.
Prevents double-counting or omission by requiring case-specific warrants (detainers) as triggers for credit accrual.
Strengthens defendants’ rights by enforcing strict compliance with statutory mandates for street-time (“elapsed time”) credit and protecting against arbitrary denials based on generalized “patterns” of misconduct.
Provides trial courts with a clear roadmap: examine only the arrest and warrant history within the case, consult probation/parole officer records in revocations, and apply credits de novo on appeal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Credit for Time Served: Days spent in custody (jail or prison) before sentencing or revocation that must reduce the total sentence imposed.
Elapsed Time (“Street Time”): Days the defendant remained at liberty on a suspended sentence; credited unless the court documents specific violations.
Bench Warrant / Detainer: A court order for arrest in a particular case, establishing jurisdictional custody for credit purposes.
Alford Plea: A plea in which a defendant maintains innocence but acknowledges that the prosecution’s evidence could likely lead to a conviction.

Conclusion

The Montana Supreme Court in State v. Pillans establishes a firm rule: Credit for time served accrues only when a sentencing court has jurisdiction and the defendant is detained under that case’s warrant or detainer. Additionally, denial of “elapsed time” credit demands documented, case-specific probation violations. Trial courts must adhere strictly to the statutory framework—examining arrest and warrant history confined to the case record, consulting officer reports in revocations, and calculating credit de novo on appeal—to ensure fair and uniform application of credits against sentences.