the purpose of NRS 176.055, the statute governing the application of credit for presentence confinement, is ‘ ‘to ensure that all time served is credited towards a defendant’s ultimate sentence.” The overwhelming majority of states adhere to the following generally accepted principle when apportioning credit for time served in presentence confinement, as stated by the Supreme Court of Hawaii in State v. Tauiliili: [Wjhen concurrent sentences are imposed, presentence credit is applied once. The credit applied once, in effect, is applied against each concurrent sentence. This is done because the longest term of the concurrent sentences determines the total length of the imprisonment. Our holding in Kuykendall coincides with the reasoning in Tauiliili, and we conc P.2d 34, 37 (1974) (<HOLDING>); Nieto v. State, 119 Nev. 229, 231-32, 70 P.3d
holding time spent on electronic monitoring while on bail release does not constitute custody within meaning of sentencing credit statute holding that the purpose of the credit statute is to provide credit for confinement    where 1 bail has been set for the defendant and 2 the defendant was financially unable to post the bail holding under excessive bail provision of article i section 16 of oregon constitution criminal defendant bears burden of establishing at hearing that amount of bail imposed is excessive recognizing statutory credit holding that the court correctly denied a mistrial when the statement that the witness saw the defendant when the defendant was signing in as a condition of bail was brief and added nothing to the governments case