Skip to content
Name: People v. Santa Ana
Case #: H042604
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/31/2016

Dual custody credit is improper in a multiple restraint case where the trial court imposes a probationary jail term in one case and imposes a consecutive probationary jail term in the other case. Santa Ana was on probation for an earlier case when she committed petty theft. Based on the petty theft, her probation in the earlier case was summarily revoked. She ultimately pleaded no contest to misdemeanor petty theft. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed her on probation for that offense, and reinstated her on probation for the earlier case. The court ordered Santa Ana to serve time in jail as a condition of probation in both cases and further ordered that the jail terms run consecutively to one another. The court applied the custody credits Santa Ana accrued from the time she was arrested for the petty theft toward the probationary jail term in the earlier case but not the current case. She appealed, arguing that she was entitled to dual credits (i.e., that her custody credits should be applied to both her probationary jail terms). A divided appellate division affirmed and transferred the case to the Court of Appeal. Held: Affirmed. The second sentence of Penal Code section 2900.5, subdivision (b) reflects a legislative intent to disallow dual credits for a single period of custody in the situation where a court imposes a consecutive sentence. Santa Ana argued that the probationary jail terms she received were not “sentences” and therefore section 2900.5, subdivision (b)’s prohibition on dual credit was inapplicable despite the fact her probationary jail terms were ordered to run consecutively to one another. The Court of Appeal disagreed. There are a number of instances in the Penal Code where the word “sentence” is used to refer to a grant of probation or the imposition of a jail term as a condition of probation. (See, e.g., Pen. Code §§ 19.2., 463, subds. (a) & (b).) A different construction would “entail a windfall of dual credits for a single period of custody . . . .”

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: