7 NICS App. 120, EDELMAN v. TULALIP TRIBES (October 2006)
IN THE TULALIP TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
TULALIP INDIAN RESERVATION
TULALIP, WASHINGTON
Nicholas D. Edelman, Petitioner,
v.
The Tulalip Tribes, Respondent.
Nos. TUL-CR-MC-2006-0220; -0279 (October 20, 2006)
SYLLABUS*
Chief Justice issued writ of habeas corpus. Chief Justice holds terms of trial court’s amended order supersede terms of original order, resulting in immediate release of Petitioner.
|
Tom Russell, for the Tulalip Tribes; Nicholas Edelman, pro se. |
OPINION
Smith, C. J.:
This matter came before the Court pursuant to a Writ of Habeas Corpus being filed by Petitioner on October 13, 2006. Petitioner alleges that he has completed his jail time and should be released. Respondent Tribes filed a Return of the Writ on October 17, 2006. A hearing was held on this date. Petitioner appeared in person and without counsel. Respondent appeared through counsel, Tom Russell, Office of Prosecuting Attorney. The Court grants Petitioner’s request to be released from jail as the Court has determined that the Petitioner should have been released on October 17, 2006.
JURISDICTION
1. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to Tulalip Law and Order Code Section 1.17. A justice of the Court of Appeals may grant a writ of habeas corpus.
7 NICS App. 120, EDELMAN v. TULALIP TRIBES (October 2006) p. 121
FACTS
1. Petitioner was originally charged with Criminal Trespass and Criminal Contempt. While on pre-trial release, he allegedly violated his EHM conditions and was subsequently charged with Escape. At a plea hearing on July 17, 2006, Petitioner was given 180 days jail, with credit for time served and good time. The Order of Release issued on July 17, 2006 only listed the Escape charge.
2. An Amended Order of Commitment was entered by the Trial Court on July 24, 2006 which included 180 days each for the Escape charge and the other two charges, Criminal Trespass and Criminal Contempt, and granted credit for time served and good time.
3. At the plea hearing on July 17, 2006, Petitioner was assured that the 29 days served in May-June 2006 would be credited to the jail time imposed, otherwise he might not have plead guilty to the charges.
4. The jail calculated Petitioner’s good time at 60 days.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Russell argued that the 29 days credit for time served during May - June 2006, should be credited only to the Criminal Trespass and Criminal Contempt charges and not credited to the Escape charge. However, a literal reading of the Amended Order of Release does not support that argument. The Order clearly states that the total confinement will be for 180 days. Credit for time served is authorized for all days (emphasis added). Jail time to be served concurrently. Good time permissible.
Mr. Edelman was very adamant that the 29 days served in May and June were to be credited to the total time served. Mr. Russell does not dispute that Petitioner served the 29 days, nor that he should be given credit for serving it. He does argue that the credit should be imposed on the Criminal Trespass and Criminal Contempt charges, and not the Escape charge. Had the Order been written differently, this Court might have been persuaded to accept this argument. However, after the hearing, the Court reviewed the July 24, 2006 Order again and determined that on its face, it is very clear that the 180 days imposed by the Court were for all the charges, the days served were for all the charges and the good time credit was for all the charges.
DECISION
1. The Amended Order of Release on July 24, 2006 is the controlling Order in this matter. The Order imposed 180 days and allowed credit for time served and good time.
2. Good time is given by the jail, at their discretion. They are allowing 60 days of good time credit.
7 NICS App. 120, EDELMAN v. TULALIP TRIBES (October 2006) p. 122
3. The 180 days (imposed from July 24, 2006), minus 29 days (credit for time served in May-June, 2006), minus 7 days (time between July 17 and July 24 orders), minus 60 days (good time credit allowed by the jail), equals 84 days left to serve. 84 days from July 24, 2006 would be October 16, 2006.
4. Petitioner should be released on October 17, 2006 as having served his sentence in this matter.
5. The jail is ordered to release Petitioner Edelman as soon as possible.
6. Petitioner’s request for restitution for days served beyond his release date will not be addressed by this Court. That is an issue that is properly before the Trial Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED
The syllabus is not a part of the Court's Opinion. The syllabus is a summary of the Opinion prepared by the publishers of this Reporter only for the convenience of the reader. Therefore, the syllabus should not be cited in whole or part as legal authority. Only the Opinion, which follows the syllabus, may be cited as legal authority.