Appellant was a state prison parolee when he committed a forgery, to which he pleaded no contest. A warrant had earlier issued because of a parole violation, and appellant was arrested first for the parole violation, and then for the forgery. The appellate court here requested briefing on the question of whether appellant was entitled to presentence custody credit, and then concluded it was error to have awarded appellant with presentence custody credits in this case. Appellant was arrested on the parole violation and remained in custody pursuant to a parole hold during the entire time from his arrest to his sentencing on the forgery. Therefore, he was not entitled to presentence credit, because the conduct which led to his conviction was not the sole reason for his loss of liberty during the presentence period.