Skip to content
Name: People v. Stump
Case #: G040446
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 04/16/2009
Summary

Credit for time served on a parole violation was properly denied where any of three parole violations could have been the reason for confinement. When appellant was arrested for driving under the influence with prior convictions, he was on parole. He pleaded guilty in exchange for a sentencing cap of no more than four years and was sentenced to four years in state prison. He was given credit for 756 days, including the actual days served and conduct credits. On appeal, he argued that the court erred in denying him credit for an additional 152 days conduct credits which he served in parole-revocation custody. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. Appellant did not show that “but for” driving under the influence he would not have been held in custody for the time period in question. He committed one violation of parole by driving without his parole officer’s permission, and a second violation for drinking alcohol. Although it is true that he committed a third violation by combining those two acts, either of those acts standing alone could have been sufficient to violate the terms of his parole. The conduct of driving under the influence was not the “only unavoidable basis” for the custody.