In State v. Miranda, 108 N.M. 789, 792, 779 P.2d 976, 979 (Ct. App. 1989), the Court explained that presentence credit was designed to assure equal treatment of all defendants regardless of whether they had the financial resources to obtain bail. The Court noted that when a defendant receives consecutive sentences, most jurisdictions grant credit only once to the aggregate sentence. Miranda, 108 N.M. at 792, 779 P.2d at 979. The Court adopted this majority rule because "it gives effect to the legislative intent in enacting Section 31-20-12 and to the court's determination of whether to sentence consecutively or concurrently." Id. at 793, 779 P.2d at 980. Although a defendant sentenced to a concurrent sentence in effect receives double credit, the rationale for such result--the exercise of the court's sentencing discretion--does not necessitate granting double credit when the court imposes a consecutive sentence. See id. at 792, 779 P.2d at 979.