Minnesota Supreme Court, 1983

Escobedo v. Oleisky

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided October 19, 1983 · Amdahl

339 N.W.2d 263; 1983 Minn. LEXIS 1321 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

William J. Gatton, Minneapolis, for petitioner., Thomas L. Johnson, Hennepin County Atty., Yernon E. Bergstrom, Chief, Appellate Section, Minneapolis, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2019, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Bonafide (Minn. Ct. App. 1990)
State v. Brom (Minn. 1990)
Ex Parte Green (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)
State v. Roy (Minn. 2019)
State v. Brown (Minn. 1984)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

AMDAHL, Chief Justice.

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus. Petitioner is a juvenile who was certified for prosecution as an adult on charges of criminal damage to property and trespass to a motor vehicle. Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced by the trial court to consecutive jail terms of 90 days for each offense. The trial court refused to give petitioner credit for time spent in the juvenile detention center awaiting certification for prosecution as an adult. Minn.R.Crim.P. 27.03, subd. 4(b), provides credit for “all time spent in custody in connection with the offense or behavioral incident for which sentence is imposed * * *.” Petitioner has provided us with cases from two other jurisdictions holding that credit should be given in such a situation. State v. DaFonseca, 109 R.I. 414, 286 A.2d 592 (1972); People v. Thomas, 58 Mich.App. 9, 226 N.W.2d 734 (1975). The state has failed to provide us with an adequate reason why the Minnesota rule should not be interpreted similarly. We hold that the trial court erred in refusing to give petitioner credit for time spent in the detention center awaiting certification.

Remanded.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.