Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 609.145 (2026)

Credit For Prior Imprisonment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Prior imprisonment reduction.

When a person has been imprisoned pursuant to a conviction which is set aside and is thereafter convicted of a crime growing out of the same act or omission, the period of imprisonment to which the person is sentenced is reduced by the period of the prior imprisonment and the time earned thereby in diminution of sentence.

Subd. 2.Reduction for time served before commitment to commissioner.

A sentence of imprisonment upon conviction of a felony is reduced by the period of confinement of the defendant following the conviction and before the defendant's commitment to the commissioner of corrections for execution of sentence unless the court otherwise directs.

Subd. 3.Credit.

When a person is to be committed to the commissioner, the person's probation officer must provide to the court, prior to the sentencing hearing, the amount of time the person has in credit for prior imprisonment. The court must pronounce credit for prior imprisonment at the time of sentencing.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1966–2025 · leading case: State v. Mattson, 376 N.W.2d 413 (Minn. 1985).
State v. Mattson, 376 N.W.2d 413 (Minn. 1985). · cites it 2× “” See also Minn.Stat. § 609.145, subd. 2 (1984); Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary III.”
State v. Parr, 414 N.W.2d 776 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “(Emphasis added); see also Minn.Stat. § 609.145, subd. 2 (1986) (credit must be given for time served between conviction and sentencing).”
State v. Roy, 928 N.W.2d 341 (Minn. 2019). · cites it 2× “2 (2018) ("A sentence of imprisonment upon conviction of a felony is reduced by the period of confinement of the defendant following the conviction and before the defendant's commitment to the commissioner of corrections for execution of sentence unless the court otherwise…”
State v. Jackson, 557 N.W.2d 552 (Minn. 1996). · cites it 4× “provides: Pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.145, subd. 2, and Minn.R.”
State v. Arend, 648 N.W.2d 746 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “4(B); see also Minn.Stat. § 609.145, subd. 1 (2000). Additionally, [j]ail credit shall reflect time spent in confinement as a condition of a stayed sentence when the stay is later revoked and the offender is committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections.”
State v. Nelson, 329 N.W.2d 827 (Minn. 1983). · cites it 2× “…273 Minn. 240 , 141 N.W.2d 15 (1966), prison time served under an invalid executed sentence should be credited. Minn.Stat. § 609.145, subd. 1 (1982).”
State v. Peterson, 359 N.W.2d 708 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “now provides: Jail Credit: Pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.145, subd. 2, and Minn.R.”
State v. Doyle, 386 N.W.2d 352 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “(emphasis added); see also Minn.Stat. § 609.145, subd. 2 (1984) (credit must be given for time served between conviction and sentencing).”
State v. Mattson, 356 N.W.2d 391 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “Louis County jail and surrendered to Wisconsin authorities on a parole violation warrant issued when Wisconsin authorities discovered appellant was charged with the present crime in Minnesota. Appellant remained in Wisconsin on the parole hold until December 5, 1983 when…”
State v. Bauman, 388 N.W.2d 795 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 609.145, subd. 2 (1984); Minn.”
State v. Minton, 149 N.W.2d 384 (Minn. 1967). “(2d) 370 , is not applicable to the instant case inasmuch as the prosecution for theft rather than burglary was primarily at the instance of the defendant, rather than upon the initiative of the state because of substantial misgiving as to the propriety of prosecuting upon the…”
State v. Youngren, 147 N.W.2d 370 (Minn. 1966). “§ 609.145. Reversed and remanded. Appendix The affidavit reads as follows: “William P.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.