Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-503 (2026)

Credit against jail term

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Credit against a jail term shall be given to any person sentenced to a city or county jail for time spent in jail as a result of the criminal charge for which the jail term is imposed or as a result of conduct upon which such charge is based. Such credit shall include, but not be limited to, time spent in jail:

(a) Prior to trial;

(b) During trial;

(c) Pending sentence;

(d) Pending resolution of an appeal; and

(e) Prior to delivery of such person to the county board of corrections or, in counties which do not have a county board of corrections, the county sheriff.

(2) Credit to any person sentenced to a city or county jail who is eligible for credit pursuant to subsection (1) of this section shall be set forth as part of the sentence at the time such sentence is imposed.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: State v. Castillo-Rodriguez, 986 N.W.2d 78 (Neb. 2023).
State v. Castillo-Rodriguez, 986 N.W.2d 78 (Neb. 2023). · cites it 21× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-503 (Reissue 2021) requires a sentencing court to separately determine, state, and grant credit for time served, and the court has no discretion to grant more or less credit than is established by the record.”
State v. Phillips, 302 Neb. 686 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 4× “To support his argument for jail credit, Phillips relies upon Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-503 (Reissue 2010), which provides in relevant part: (1) Credit against a jail term shall be given to any person sentenced to a city or county jail for time spent in jail as a result of the…”
State v. Harms, 304 Neb. 441 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 12× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-503 (Reissue 2010) is intended to ensure that defendants receive all the credit against their jail sentence to which they are entitled—no less, and no more.”
State v. Clark, 772 N.W.2d 559 (Neb. 2009). · cites it 4× “[7] [5,6] We have explained that pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-503 (Reissue 2004), a sentencing court is required to separately determine, state, and grant credit for time served.”
State v. Galvan, 305 Neb. 513 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 5× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-503 (1) (Reissue 2010) provides credit for “time spent in jail as a result of the criminal charge for - 524 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v.”
Mullins v. Box Butte Cnty., 317 Neb. 937 (Neb. 2024). · cites it 7× “113, § 3 (codified at § 47-503 (Reissue 1993)). 23 See § 47-503(1) (Reissue 1993).”
State v. Decker, 622 N.W.2d 903 (Neb. 2001). · cites it 2× “We have also held that when a defendant receives a sentence consecutive to a life sentence which carries a maximum and minimum term, the defendant is entitled to receive credit for the time served against the consecutive sentence.”
State v. Torres, 590 N.W.2d 184 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 8× “Torres appeals from his sentence for violating the terms of his probation, claiming that he was not credited for time already served, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-503 (Reissue 1998). We determine that Torres was not sentenced as required by statute, and we reverse, and…”
State v. Clark, 762 N.W.2d 64 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 13× “Pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 47-503 (Reissue 2004), a court must separately determine the amount of time previously served and grant the requisite amount of credit for that time served as a part of the sentence.”
State v. Brown, 317 Neb. 273 (Neb. 2024). · cites it 2× “273 [10] We have long recognized that imprisonment and pro- bation are mutually exclusive sentencing alternatives, and the Legislature has not authorized combining a sentence of impris- onment and a sentence of probation within the same sen- tence.”
State v. Harker, 600 N.W.2d 488 (Neb. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “” Defense counsel then cited Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-503 (Reissue 1998) and again argued Harker was entitled to credit.”
State v. McCain, 29 Neb. Ct. App. 981 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 8× “When sentencing is deferred during the time a defend­ ant is participating in a drug court program, the time he or she spent in jail is pending sentencing pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-503 (1) (Reissue 2010).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-503(1) — 5 cases
State v. Galvan, 305 Neb. 513 (Neb. 2020). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-503 (1) (Reissue 2010) provides credit for “time spent in jail as a result of the criminal charge for - 524 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v.”
State v. Harms, 304 Neb. 441 (Neb. 2019). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-503 (Reissue 2010) is intended to ensure that defendants receive all the credit against their jail sentence to which they are entitled—no less, and no more.”
Mullins v. Box Butte Cnty., 317 Neb. 937 (Neb. 2024). “113, § 3 (codified at § 47-503 (Reissue 1993)). 23 See § 47-503(1) (Reissue 1993).”
State v. McCain, 29 Neb. Ct. App. 981 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021). “When sentencing is deferred during the time a defend­ ant is participating in a drug court program, the time he or she spent in jail is pending sentencing pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-503 (1) (Reissue 2010).”
State v. Anderson, 779 N.W.2d 623 (Neb. Ct. App. 2010).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-503(2) — 3 cases
State v. Clark, 762 N.W.2d 64 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009). “Pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 47-503 (Reissue 2004), a court must separately determine the amount of time previously served and grant the requisite amount of credit for that time served as a part of the sentence.”
State v. Torres, 590 N.W.2d 184 (Neb. 1999). “Torres appeals from his sentence for violating the terms of his probation, claiming that he was not credited for time already served, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-503 (Reissue 1998). We determine that Torres was not sentenced as required by statute, and we reverse, and…”
Mullins v. Box Butte Cnty., 317 Neb. 937 (Neb. 2024). “113, § 3 (codified at § 47-503 (Reissue 1993)). 23 See § 47-503(1) (Reissue 1993).”
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.