People v. Dixon

The majority approves the Department of Corrections’ (DOC) refusal to comply with the directive contained in the mittimus and the trial court’s subsequent order. The opinion compounds this error by sanctioning the principle that a trial court’s presentence confinement credit order has no meaning, unless approved by the DOC. Maj. op. at 1177-78. Contrary to the majority’s holding, the mitti-mus and order allocate 174 days of presen-tence confinement to Dixon’s attempted aggravated robbery sentence. In light of this fact, I conclude the DOC erroneously ignored the sentence imposed by the trial…