In this opinion, the Supreme Court reviewed a district court’s review of a county court’s interpretation and application of CRS § 18-1.3-204(2)(a)(VIII). The Court held that the statute’s plain language creates a presumption that a defendant who is sentenced to a term of probation may use medical marijuana unless one of the enumerated exceptions applies. The prosecution bears the burden of overcoming the presumption. The relevant exception in this case requires the court to make particularized findings, based on material evidence, that prohibiting defendant’s otherwise-authorized medical marijuana use is necessary and appropriate to promote statutory sentencing goals. Because the county court made no such findings here, the Court disapproved of the district court’s order affirming the county court’s decision.

In this case, the Supreme Court addressed two issues related to the calculation of a defendant’s credit for presentence confinement. First, the Court concluded that when a defendant who is out of custody on bond in one case commits another offense and is unable to post bond in that second case, the defendant is not entitled to presentence confinement credit (PSCC) in the first case for time spent in custody for the second case. Second, the Court held that a defendant is entitled to PSCC for both the first and last days of his or her presentence confinement. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanded the case for correction of the amount of PSCC awarded to defendant consistent with this opinion.

The Supreme Court held that a motion to correct the amount of presentence confinement credit (PSCC) awarded to a defendant is not appropriately framed as a Crim. P. 35(a) claim that a sentence was “not authorized by law.” An error in PSCC does not render a sentence “not authorized by law” because PSCC is not a component of the sentence. Rather, it is credit earned for time served prior to sentencing that is later applied against the sentence. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanded the case with instructions to return it to the district court for correction consistent with this opinion.