Go to Law Offices of Michael B. Skinner

Recent Entries
Michigan Supreme Court Term
Typos
Supreme Court Elections
2010 Appellate Bench Bar Conference
Pre-Arrest Silence and Tacit Admissions
Credibility Determinations at Ginther Hearings
Medical Malpractice Kerfuffle
Slip and Fall
Child Support and Termination of Parental Rights
Lost
Knife Length
People v Waterstone
United States v Comstock
Graham v Florida
What is Truth?
When a Prosecutor Voluntarily Dimisses a Case
People v Houthoofd
Streaming Oral Argument
Remand to a Different Judge
Disqualifying Prosecutor
Sex Offender Registration and HYTA
Doubling the sentence for drug offenses
Rights of Parents
Class Certification
Drinking and Driving


ARCHIVES

RSS Feed

Blogroll
Confrontation Blog
Crim Law
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Direct Appeal (CA10 Criminal Cases)
Fourth Amendment
Have Opinion Will Travel
How Appealing
Michigan Bankruptcy Law
Michigan Collection Law
Michigan Construction Law
Michigan Drunk Driving
Michigan Elder Law
Michigan Health Care Law
Michigan Long Term Disability Law
Michigan Real Estate Law
Michigan Workers' Compensation Law
Military Veteran Law
Ninth Circuit Criminal Appeal
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law and Policy
Sixth Circuit Blog
Split Circuits
The Volokh Conspiracy
Wall Street Journal Law Blog


© 2005  Michael B. Skinner Law Offices Website
Blog Home
Michigan Appellate Law

Parole and Jail Credit


The door closes a little more for parolees
by Michael B. Skinner · Monday May 11, 2009 10:22 am  PERMALINK
There have been some cases over the past few years closing the dor on the availability of jail credit for parolees who are arrested for a new crime, are convicted, and request credit on the new charge for the time that they spent in jail awaiting disposition (see, e.g., People v Filip, 278 Mich App 635 (2008) and People v Seiders, 262 Mich App 702 (2004)).

Now, the Court of Appeals has issued People v Johnson (docket no. 279163), which is in the category of "mopping-up" work, closing the little gaps left available to parolees to try to argue that they are entitled to jail credit. In Johnson, the defendant argued that because the trial court had granted him bond but it had not been posted, he should get credit. The court said that this was the same argument rejected in Filip, so the defendant lost.