Skip to content
Name: People v. Samuels
Case #: B280619
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 03/28/2018
Summary

An incarcerated defendant may not accrue Penal Code section 4019 conduct credits against a term of mandatory supervision unless the conduct resulting in the supervision was the “true and only unavoidable basis” for the incarceration. In March 2014, Samuels pleaded no contest to the unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle. The trial court suspended execution of sentence and ordered five years of mandatory supervision. Over the next 14 months, Samuels violated the terms of his supervision several times, and served several stints in custody. In May 2015, he was convicted of possession of methamphetamine for sale, and admitted violating the terms of his mandatory supervision on the vehicle theft case. The trial court sentenced him to three years in jail on the new drug case. It released him from custody on the vehicle case, and reinstated mandatory supervision. After his release nearly a year later, the defendant moved to correct the credit calculation in the vehicle case, arguing that he was entitled to conduct credits under section 4019 for the 351 days he spent in jail on the drug case between May 2015 and May 2016. The motion was denied and Samuels appealed. Held: Affirmed. While under mandatory supervision, a defendant is “entitled to only actual time credit against the term of imprisonment” unless “in actual custody related to the sentence imposed by the court.” (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)(5)(B).) The Court of Appeal here concluded that Samuels was not in “in actual custody related to the sentence imposed” for the vehicle case. The trial court released him from custody in the vehicle case and reinstated mandatory supervision in May 2015. A defendant under mandatory supervision is not under restraint, and a defendant may not accrue section 4019 credits if not under restraint. Analogizing to cases that have disavowed awarding dual credits, the court concluded “but for” causation was required and Samuels had not met this standard by showing the vehicle case provided a basis for his jail sentence in the drug case.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B280619.PDF