Background
Eric Bruce Fowler appealed the sentence imposed after the Valley County District Court revoked his five-year suspended sentence. The court sentenced him to five years in prison and awarded 401 days of credit, including 222 days from the original sentence, 18 days of time-served credit, and 161 days of elapsed-time credit.
Fowler sought additional credit for periods from 2020 through 2025 when he was held on separate federal, North Dakota, and Oklahoma matters. He also sought elapsed-time credit for several of those periods. The relevant revocation warrants were issued in June 2024, October 2024, and March 2025.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of credit for Fowler’s incarceration in other jurisdictions. Although the District Court had issued warrants in some instances, Fowler was not detained subject to the Valley County court’s jurisdiction; his custody instead resulted from unrelated federal or state proceedings. The court distinguished a warrant that functions as a detainer from one that does not.
The court also declined to consider Fowler’s elapsed-time-credit arguments for periods not raised in the District Court, holding those claims were unpreserved. But the State conceded that Fowler was entitled to credit beginning March 25, 2025, rather than March 28. The court remanded for four additional days of time-served credit. It declined the State’s request to remove the previously awarded 222 days because the State had not cross-appealed.
Key Takeaways
- Custody in another jurisdiction does not warrant sentence credit unless the defendant is detained subject to the sentencing court’s jurisdiction.
- Elapsed-time-credit arguments generally must be raised in the trial court to be preserved for appeal.
- The District Court must add four days of time-served credit for March 25 through March 28, 2025.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Montana’s rule that a revocation warrant alone does not automatically make out-of-jurisdiction incarceration creditable. The defendant must show both that the sentencing court asserted jurisdiction and that the detention was subject to that jurisdiction.
It also underscores the procedural importance of preserving credit claims and of cross-appealing when the State seeks to reduce a credit award in the judgment.