Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. West-Doney

Idaho Court of Appeals

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 52241

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (737)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52241

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 17, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JESSICA JO WEST-DONEY, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Peter G. Barton, District Judge.

Order denying motion for credit for time served, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Neil Paterson, Deputy Attorney General,
Boise, for respondent.

TRIBE, Chief Judge
Jessica Jo West-Doney appeals from an order denying her motion for credit for time served.
We affirm.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
West-Doney was arrested and charged with two counts of felony burglary in April 2020.
The day after her arrest, the district court ordered that West-Doney be released on her own
recognizance. West-Doney pled guilty to one count of burglary (Idaho Code § 18-1401). The
district court sentenced West-Doney to a unified term of six years, with a minimum period of
confinement of one year. The district court granted West-Doney two days credit for time served.
In May 2024, West-Doney filed a motion for credit for time served, alleging that she was
entitled to 255 days of credit for time served between April 5, 2020, (the date of her arrest) and

1
December 16, 2020 (the date she was sentenced). The State objected. The district court denied
West-Doney’s motion. West-Doney appeals.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The question of whether a sentencing court has properly awarded credit for time served to
the facts of a particular case is a question of law, which is subject to free review by the appellate
courts. State v. Taylor, 160 Idaho 381, 384-85, 373 P.3d 699, 702-03 (2016). We defer to the trial
court’s findings of fact unless those findings are unsupported by substantial and competent
evidence in the record and are therefore clearly erroneous. State v. Covert, 143 Idaho 169, 170,
139 P.3d 771, 772 (Ct. App. 2006).
III.
ANALYSIS
“Mindful that there is no evidence in the record to demonstrate that she is entitled to
additional credit,” West-Doney argues that she should be given credit for 255 days--between
April 5, 2020, and December 16, 2020. The State responds that the district court correctly
concluded that West-Doney is not entitled to additional credit. We hold that West-Doney has
failed to show that the district court erred by denying her motion.
The awarding of credit for time served is governed by I.C. § 18-309. The language of I.C.
§ 18-309 is mandatory and requires that, in sentencing a criminal defendant or when considering
an I.C.R. 35(c) motion for credit for time served, the trial court give the appropriate credit for
prejudgment incarceration. State v. Moore, 156 Idaho 17, 20-21, 319 P.3d 501, 504-05 (Ct. App.
2014). To entitle the defendant to credit for time served, the prejudgment incarceration must be
“for the offense or an included offense for which the judgment was entered.” I.C. § 18-309(1). A
two-pronged test, if satisfied, mandates credit for time served under I.C. § 18-309:
[F]irst, the defendant must have been incarcerated during the intervening period
from when the arrest warrant was served [or the warrantless arrest occurred] and
the judgment of conviction was entered; and second, putting aside any alternative
reason for the defendant’s incarceration, the relevant offense must be one that
provides a basis for the defendant’s incarceration.
State v. Brand, 162 Idaho 189, 192-93, 395 P.3d 809, 812-13 (2017) (internal citations omitted).
The district court concluded that West-Doney was entitled to credit for the period of
incarceration attributable to the burglary charge in this case. The district court found that

2
West-Doney was arrested on April 5, 2020, and released from jail on her own recognizance the
following day. Accordingly, the district court awarded West-Doney two days credit for time
served.
West-Doney does not challenge the district court’s calculation of the two days credit she
received. Instead, she argues that she is entitled to 255 days of credit for time served between
April 5, 2020, and December 16, 2020. Although West-Doney remained in custody after her
release in this case, she has not shown that any additional period of incarceration was attributable
to the burglary charge for which judgment was entered in this case. Because her continued custody
was not attributable to this case, West-Doney’s claim is inconsistent with the plain language of
I.C. § 18-309 and Brand.
IV.
CONCLUSION
The district court did not err in its calculation of West-Doney’s credit for time served.
Consequently, the district court’s order denying West-Doney’s motion for credit for time served
is affirmed.
Judge GRATTON and Judge HUSKEY, CONCUR.

3