Credits

Name: People v. Cofer
Case #: S286297
Court: CA Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 06/25/2026

The California Supreme Court concludes that "proceedings" as used in PC 2900.5(b) means an individual criminal case. Therefore, custody credit is not automatically applied across multiple, distinct cases merely because those cases are resolved and sentenced at a single hearing. In this appeal, appellant resolved five cases by plea agreement which included pleading to one count in each case. Appellant was sentenced per the agreement to a base term on one case with concurrent terms in the other cases. The trial court was correct to award credit in each individual case for only the time appellant spent in custody on…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Powell
Case #: A170473
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 06/30/2026

A trial court’s erroneous oral pronouncement regarding custody credits constitutes clerical error which the court has jurisdiction to correct at any time. The opinion disagrees with recent decisions (see, e.g., People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56) finding such a mistake to be judicial error.  Correcting this “math error” does not trigger a full sentencing or require recalculating updated actual custody credits under Buckhalter.

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

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Taft
Case #: B339775
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 03/20/2026

PC 1237.1 confers jurisdiction on a trial court to correct erroneous custody credit calculations while an appeal is pending. The trial court cited People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to correct the acknowledged error. However, Singleton stated that a trial court may modify a sentence pursuant to an “authorizing statute,” and here PC 1237.1 qualified.

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

View Full Summary
Name: In re Thai
Case #: A170701
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 12/16/2025

CDCR’s regulation allowing only educational merit credits to advance a youth offender’s youth parole eligible date (YPED), while permitting additional credit categories to advance the minimum parole eligibility date (MPED) of nonyouth indeterminately sentenced prisoners, is lawful and constitutional. Youth offender parole under PC 3051 and adult indeterminate parole under PC 3041 are distinct statutory schemes with separate definitions. Additionally, applying rational basis review, the court found no equal protection violation related to the disparate treatment.

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

View Full Summary
Name: Criminal Justice Legal Foundation v. Dept. of Corr. & Rehab.
Case #: C100274
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/28/2025
Subsequent History: Review granted 10/22/25 (S292887)

Proposition 57 permits CDCR to award custody credits beyond those authorized by statute, but does not permit awarding credits to advance indeterminate sentence parole eligibility date in a manner conflicting with a statute.  Regulations conflicting with statutes are invalid. For example, CDCR regulations may not conflict with PC 190(e), which states that conduct credits may not decrease the minimum term for a PC 187 sentence.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C100274.PDF

Proposition 57 permits CDCR to award custody credits beyond those authorized by statute, but does not permit awarding credits to advance indeterminate sentence parole eligibility date in a manner conflicting with a statute.  Regulations conflicting with statutes are invalid. For example, CDCR regulations may not conflict with PC 190(e), which states that conduct credits may not decrease the minimum term for a PC 187 sentence.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C100274.PDF

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Gonzalez
Case #: D082662
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/07/2025
Subsequent History: Review granted 4/30/25 (S286371)

Case remanded to the trial court to correct custody credits, but defendant’s request to be personally present is denied. In a previous habeas corpus proceeding, the Court of Appeal ordered the trial court correct custody credits. After the trial court incorrectly adjusted the credits on remand, defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal held that defendant was not entitled to full resentencing on remand and was not entitled to be present when the court recalculated his credits.

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

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Brown
Case #: JAD24-10
Court: CA Superior Court
Opinion Date: 11/26/2024

The trial court erred in awarding custody credits where the requirements of appellant’s release on Supervised Own Recognizance were not as custodial or restraining as a statutory home detention. Although the trial court ordered GPS monitoring and required a 4th Amendment waiver to permit searches of his home, the order did not designate hours where Appellant was to remain in the interior premises of his residence. (People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067.) A criminal protective order to refrain from going near certain individuals or locations is not the same as prohibiting a person from leaving their residence at all…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Dauterman
Case #: C099223
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/23/2024

Held: (1) no “legal basis, statutory or otherwise” for defense contention that custody credits earned before plea and placement on probation should or could reduce the length of the probation period; (2) no abuse of discretion in trial court declining to reinstate probation, and instead executing suspended prison term, where defendant failed to report to probation for three consecutive months; (3) trial counsel not ineffective in failing to argue probation had expired with respect to one alleged violation where two “conceivable” tactical reasons explain counsel’s omission.

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

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Cofer (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 333
Case #: H050122
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/28/2024
Subsequent History: Review granted 10/2/24 (S286297)

When a defendant is sentenced concurrently at a single hearing to resolve multiple cases, Penal Code section 2900.5 requires the trial court to apply presentence credits for all periods of actual custody toward all concurrent sentences. Cofer was sentenced as part of a negotiated disposition of five open cases to a six-year principal term, with all other terms running concurrent. The trial court denied the request for dual presentence credits, ruling that under People v. Jacobs (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 67, Cofer was not entitled to credits for cases where he remained on bail or on his own recognizance while in…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56
Case #: E081005
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 06/27/2024

The trial court lacked "fundamental jurisdiction" to hear defendant’s motion to correct error in calculating custody credits filed years after sentencing. The Court of Appeal follows People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629 in holding that an unauthorized sentence does not create trial court jurisdiction to correct the error, disagreeing with People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976. Further, a sentence unauthorized in one respect (custody credits) does not require vacating the entire sentence or justify a full…

View Full Summary