Jurisdictional Trigger for Credit Accrual in Montana Sentencing and Revocations

Introduction

State of Montana v. William James Pillans (2025 MT 100) is a Supreme Court of Montana decision clarifying how district courts must calculate credit for time served and elapsed (street) time in initial sentencing and post-revocation scenarios. The appellant, William James Pillans, faced three parallel criminal cases (DC-18-098, DC-18-298, and DC-18-329) in Flathead County, charged respectively with Assault with a Weapon, Criminal Endangerment, and Assault on a Peace Officer. After multiple arrests, recognizance releases, plea agreements, and two revocations of his suspended sentences, the core issues on appeal were:

Whether the District Court erred in calculating Pillans’s credit for actual days incarcerated (“time served”).
Whether the District Court erred in calculating Pillans’s credit for elapsed (street) time between revocation events.

Counsel of record included Tammy A. Hinderman and Charlotte Lawson for the appellant, and Austin Knudsen, Katie F. Schulz, Travis R. Ahner, and Andrew Clegg for the State. Justice James Jeremiah Shea delivered the unanimous opinion.

Summary of the Judgment

On May 11, 2023, the District Court revoked Pillans’s suspended sentences and imposed concurrent five-year terms with no suspension. The court had carried forward multiple credit determinations, ultimately awarding:

DC-18-098: 364 days of time served, 18 months of elapsed time;
DC-18-298: 535 days of time served, 18 months of elapsed time;
DC-18-329: 535 days of time served, 18 months of elapsed time.

On appeal, the Supreme Court identified calculation errors under Title 46, Montana Code Annotated, and established that credit for time served begins the moment the sentencing court has formal jurisdiction over the offender and the offender is detained pursuant to that jurisdiction—not merely when an arrest warrant is served. The Court corrected three categories of under- and over-crediting, and remanded with precise credit awards:

DC-18-098: 372 days time served, 21 months & 2 days elapsed time;
DC-18-298: 543 days time served, 21 months & 2 days elapsed time;
DC-18-329: 517 days time served, 21 months & 2 days elapsed time.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

State v. Risher, 2024 MT 309: Held that credit for time served begins when the sentencing court gains jurisdiction and the defendant is detained under that jurisdiction, including when a bench warrant acts as a detainer.
State v. Crazymule, 2024 MT 58: Reinforced de novo review of credit calculations and that warrant issuance while already in custody triggers accrual.
State v. Spagnolo, 2022 MT 228: Confirmed accrual from initial arrest on the sentencing charge.
Killam v. Salmonsen, 2021 MT 196: Emphasized that credit must be calculated “based on the record relating to the offense” without importing detentions from unrelated matters.
State v. Williams, 2003 MT 136: Plenary review of statutory compliance in revocation sentences.
State v. Jardee, 2020 MT 81: Required more than a generalized “pattern” of misconduct to deny street time credit.
State v. Gudmundsen, 2022 MT 178: Stressed the need for “specific violations” in probation/parole officer records to withhold elapsed time credit.
State v. Lane, 1998 MT 76: Established that oral pronouncement of sentence controls over written judgments in case of conflict.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning pivoted on three Montana statutes:

§ 46-18-403(1)(a), MCA (“Credit for Incarceration Prior to Conviction”): Mandates credit for every day incarcerated, not to exceed the imposed sentence.
§ 46-18-201(9), MCA: Requires credit for time served before trial or sentencing when imposing an incarceration sentence.
§ 46-18-203(7)(b), MCA: Directs that on revocation, “all of the elapsed time served without any record or recollection of violations” must be credited.

By reading these provisions alongside the precedents, the Court clarified:

Detention time counts only when tied to the case at hand—merely being in custody on a separate matter does not trigger credit.
An arrest warrant or bench warrant operates as a detainer once issued, entitling the defendant to credit from that date.
Elapsed (street) time credit cannot be withheld on the basis of vague or generalized misconduct; specific documented violations are required.

These principles were applied step-by-step to each disputed period in Pillans’s convoluted custodial timeline, resulting in recalculated credit totals.

Impact

This ruling provides lower courts and practitioners with:

Clarity on when credit for time served begins—namely, when the court obtains jurisdiction and detains the defendant for that specific case.
A warning that omnibus credit requests must be parsed against each case record rather than granted by blanket release orders.
Guidance on street-time credit: probation and parole officers must document specific violations to support any denial.

Future Montana cases will reference this jurisdictional trigger test to avoid erroneous credit awards and to uphold defendants’ statutory entitlements.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Credit for Time Served: Days spent in jail or prison before the final sentence that count toward the final term.
Elapsed (Street) Time: Days spent living in the community under supervision (probation or suspended sentence) that also count toward any future term if revoked.
Bench Warrant / Detainer: An order issued by the court to take a defendant into custody; under Montana law, it acts as the moment credit begins to run for that case.
Jurisdictional Trigger: The legal point at which the sentencing court has authority over the person and the person is detained by that authority.

Conclusion

State v. Pillans refines Montana sentencing law by establishing a clear, jurisdiction-based test for when credit for time served begins and reaffirming the defendant’s right to street-time credit absent specific documented violations. The decision ensures that credit calculations are anchored in the case record, guards against double-counting unrelated detentions, and strengthens procedural safeguards for supervised release credit. As a result, sentencing courts across Montana now have a definitive framework to calculate and document both time-served and elapsed-time credits in initial and post-revocation contexts.