from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District of the
State of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz,
decision of the district court is affirmed.
D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for
appellant. Sally J. Cooley argued.
Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for
respondent. Kenneth K. Jorgensen argued.
case involves a question of the proper amount of credit for
time served to which the appellant, Ms. Gonzalez, is
entitled; however, the focal point of our decision today is
whether Gonzalez's position was properly raised and ruled
upon by the district court. Because we hold that it was not,
Gonzalez's appeal fails. However, we recognize that some
confusion has arisen over how this Court addresses a new
legal argument made on appeal in light of State v.
Garcia-Rodriguez, 162 Idaho 271, 396 P.3d 700 (2017),
and Ada County Highway District v. Brooke View,
Inc., 162 Idaho 138, 395 P.3d 357 (2017). We take this
opportunity to clarify the rule announced in these cases and
explain why we reached two very different decisions in each
Gonzalez pleaded guilty to two criminal counts of possession
of a financial transaction card in Bannock County and
thereafter requested credit for time served while she was
jailed in Canyon County on similar, but unrelated charges.
The legal position she took in support of her motion changed.
Before the district court, she requested credit from the time
Bannock County first issued an arrest warrant in October
2015. In briefing before this Court, she requested credit
from the time Bannock County placed a "hold" on her
on December 11, 2015. Her position changed again during oral
argument when counsel was presented with an affidavit of
service in the record which appears to demonstrate that
Gonzalez was actually served with the Bannock County arrest
warrant on December 11, 2015. In considering the last legal
position Gonzalez took, it appears she is legally entitled to
credit for time served from when she was first served with
the warrant, absent evidence challenging the veracity of the
service affidavit. However, since this position was not
presented before the district court, Gonzalez has failed to
preserve the issue for appeal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
September 28, 2015, Zuatney Gonzalez ran afoul of the law
when she used a fictitious credit card at a Sportsman's
Warehouse in Bannock County to make a purchase of $3, 760.
After continuing her unlawful shopping spree in Nampa, Idaho,
she was arrested and jailed in Canyon County. On October 21,
2015-while Gonzalez was sitting in Canyon County custody-
Bannock County prosecutors filed a criminal complaint against
her, and a Bannock County magistrate court issued an arrest
warrant with a $25, 000 bond.
record shows that on December 11, 2015, Corporal Kelly Pound
with Canyon County served the Bannock County arrest warrant
on Gonzalez. Three days later, the Canyon County magistrate
court held an in-custody arraignment on the Bannock County
charges, notified Gonzalez of the warrant, set bail at $25,
000, and remanded her back to the custody of the Canyon
County Sheriff's Department. After pleading guilty to her
Canyon County charges and being sentenced, Gonzalez was
transferred to Bannock County where she was again served with
the arrest warrant on March 3, 2016.
April 19, 2016, Gonzalez pleaded guilty in Bannock County to
two counts of criminal possession of a credit card and was
sentenced to a unified term of five years that would run
concurrently with the similar charges in Canyon County. On
July 14, 2016, Gonzalez moved the district court for credit
for time served. Specifically, she requested credit for the
time she was incarcerated in Canyon County-from October 21,
2015, the date of the issuance of the arrest warrant, to
March 9, 2016, when she was transferred to Bannock County. In
support of her motion, Gonzalez attached a copy of the arrest
warrant served on her in March and a computer printout that
outlined events during her incarceration in Canyon County; on
the printout there was a "Holds" section that
featured the following: "WENT TO BANNCOCK (sic) COUNTY
Other County Hold 12/11/2015." The arrest warrant served
on her in December with the accompanying certificate of
service was not attached or mentioned in the motion.
the motion hearing, Gonzalez's attorney briefly explained
that Gonzalez had been served with a Bannock County arrest
warrant while she was in Canyon County, but incorrectly told
the court that the correct warrant was attached to the
motion. The court stated that it would review everything and
ensure Gonzalez was given appropriate credit for all time
served. It then partially granted her motion, giving her
credit for the time served from the date of the
second service of her arrest warrant on
March 3, 2016. However, it denied any credit for time served
while she was incarcerated in Canyon County, explaining:
Gonzalez's incarceration in the Canyon County jail was
for an offense other than the one for which she was sentenced
in Bannock County; therefore she is not entitled to credit in
the Bannock County case for that Canyon County jail time.
However, once the Defendant was served with the arrest
warrant, it is clear that she was then being held for
criminal conduct that allegedly occurred in Bannock County,
and she is therefore entitled to credit for time served from
March 3, 2016, until May 2, 2016. . .
After careful consideration, this Court DENIES the
Defendant's request for credit for time served from
October 21, 2015, to March 3, 2016, since she was confined in
the Canyon County jail on conduct ...