People v. Endsley.
2026 COA 19. No. 24CA1744. Sentencing—Credit for Presentence Confinement—Waiver.
March 26, 2026
Endsley pleaded guilty to attempted first degree murder and attempt to disarm a peace officer. He stipulated to a 35-year sentence in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC) and agreed that he would receive no credit for time served. Endsley confirmed at the providency hearing that he had read, understood, and signed the written plea agreement. However, at the sentencing hearing, defense counsel argued that the stipulated plea term on presentence confinement credit (PSCC) was illegal because the applicable statute did not authorize a waiver of PSCC. The court imposed the stipulated sentence, found that Endsley was not entitled to PSCC, and directed the DOC to not apply the PSCC. Endsley later filed a Crim. P. 35(a) motion reasserting that the plea agreement’s PSCC provision was illegal. He asked the court to amend the mittimus to show the amount of PSCC he was entitled to and to remove the direction to the DOC that it should not apply the credit. The postconviction court found that Endsley had knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his statutory right to PSCC, and it denied the motion.
On appeal, Endsley argued that the postconviction court erred in denying his motion. He maintained that the PSCC provision was ambiguous about whether he intended to waive his PSCC because it was located within the sections of the plea agreement describing what the district attorney agreed to at sentencing. However, the only reasonable interpretation of the PSCC provision is that Endsley agreed to waive his right to PSCC, and the record clearly supported this interpretation.
Endsley also contended that even if the PSCC provision was not ambiguous, he could not waive PSCC because the imposition of an illegal sentence cannot be waived. He maintained that CRS § 18-1.3-405 requires a court to determine the amount of a defendant’s PSCC, so a stipulation to waive PSCC in a plea agreement is inconsistent with this statutory obligation, since the DOC, not the court, has the statutory authority to deduct a defendant’s PSCC from the sentence. But statutory rights can be waived if the defendant’s waiver is voluntary, so a defendant can waive their statutory right to PSCC as a negotiated term of a plea agreement. However, when such waiver occurs, the court lacks authority to direct the DOC how it should act. The mittimus must therefore be amended to reflect that Endsley is not entitled to any PSCC because he waived it as part of the plea agreement.
The order was affirmed and the case was remanded for the court to amend the mittimus to reflect that Endsley is not entitled to PSCC.