Skip to content
Name: People v. Cooper
Case #: S092882
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 01/14/2002
Subsequent History: None

Appellant was convicted of a murder which was committed in May, 1998, and was sentenced to 15 years to life. The trial court awarded him 336 days of actual time served, and 50 days of presentence conduct credits. In calculating the presentence conduct credits, the court limited those credits to 15 percent of the actual time served under section 2933.1, subdivision (c). On appeal, the Court of Appeal awarded appellant full conduct credits as authorized under section 4019. The California Supreme Court granted review to determine whether the 15 percent limitation on presentence conduct credits applied…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Martinez
Case #: B150882
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 12/05/2001
Subsequent History: Review granted 2/20/02. Depublished.

A petition for writ of habeas corpus was granted where the California Department of Corrections (CDC) miscalculated petitioner’s custody credits. CDC failed to consider that petitioner’s original conviction had been reversed, and therefore mischaracterized the nature of the 1092 days she spent in custody between the dates of the conviction and the reversal. The 1092 days in custody should have been characterized as presentence time and custody credits should have been calculated under Penal Code section…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Van Buren
Case #: B144839
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 11/07/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. denied 1/23/02.

The 15 percent limitation on credits under Penal Code section 2933.1, for persons convicted of violent felonies as defined by section 667.5, includes the felonies which have been added by amendment to section 667.5, not just those in the version which was in effect when section 2933.1 was enacted. Therefore, appellant’s 15 percent credit limitation, imposed because he was convicted of second degree robbery, was proper, even though only residential robbery with a firearm was on the list of violent felonies at the time section 2933.1 was enacted. The trial court erred when it accepted an admission by…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Buckhalter
Case #: S086220
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 07/09/2001
Subsequent History: Rehg. den. 8/29/01

When an appellate remand results in modification of a felony sentence during the term of imprisonment, the trial court must calculate the actual time the defendant has already served and credit that time against the "subsequent sentence." On the other hand, a convicted felon once sentenced, committed and delivered to prison is not restored to presentence status, for purposes of the sentence-credit statutes, by virtue of a limited appellate remand for correction of sentencing errors. Instead, he remains "imprisoned" in the custody of the Director of Corrections "until duly released according to law," even while temporarily confined away…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Buckhalter
Case #: S086220
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 07/09/2001
Subsequent History: Rehg. den. 8/29/01

When an appellate remand results in modification of a felony sentence during the term of imprisonment, the trial court must calculate the actual time the defendant has already served and credit that time against the "subsequent sentence." On the other hand, a convicted felon once sentenced, committed and delivered to prison is not restored to presentence status, for purposes of the sentence-credit statutes, by virtue of a limited appellate remand for correction of sentencing errors. Instead, he remains "imprisoned" in the custody of the Director of Corrections "until duly released according to law," even while temporarily confined away…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Reeves
Case #: A078462
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 07/30/2001
Subsequent History: Modif. without chg in jmt and rehg. den. on 8/28/01

Appellant was convicted of several burglaries and sex offenses committed against multiple victims during a nine-month period. Evidence admitted to prove two of the sex offenses included forensic DNA evidence identifying appellant as the perpetrator. On appeal, appellant argued that the DNA evidence should have been excluded under People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24, because the formula used by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) to calculate the statistical significance of DNA matches is not generally accepted in the scientific community because it fails to consider laboratory error rates; that the DOJ's polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis is not…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Herrera
Case #: B139597
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 05/10/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 8/22/01

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, and was found to have personally used a firearm under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivisions (d) and (e). The murder was found to have been for the benefit of a street gang under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1). After a lengthy statutory history analysis, the court concluded that the correct term for the first degree murder was 25 years to life, because that punishment was set by a voter initiative (Pen. Code, § 190), which could not be amended by a mere legislative enactment (former Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ly
Case #: B139382
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 05/16/2001
Subsequent History: Modif. on den. of rehg. 6/15/01 with no change in jmt; Rev. den. 8/22/01

Appellant was convicted of first degree murder; the crime occurred on February 27, 1996. Although Penal Code section 2933.2 prohibits presentence conduct credits for murderers, its effective date is June 3, 1998 and it applies prospectively only. Appellant was entitled to conduct credit, but under Penal Code section 2933.1, effective on September 21, 1994, he earned conduct credit at the rate of 15…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ly
Case #: B139382
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 05/16/2001
Subsequent History: Modif. on den. of rehg. 6/15/01 with no change in jmt; Rev. den. 8/22/01

Appellant was convicted of first degree murder; the crime occurred on February 27, 1996. Although Penal Code section 2933.2 prohibits presentence conduct credits for murderers, its effective date is June 3, 1998 and it applies prospectively only. Appellant was entitled to conduct credit, but under Penal Code section 2933.1, effective on September 21, 1994, he earned conduct credit at the rate of 15…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Castro
Case #: E026619
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 03/28/2001
Subsequent History: Modif. of opn. on den. of rehg. 88 Cal.App.4th 875a; Rev. grtd 7/11/01 as S097172

Where a mistrial is declared because of "legal necessity," the double jeopardy clauses of the state and federal Constitutions do not bar a second trial for the same offense. Therefore, where the public defender declared a conflict on the eve of trial after the jury had been selected, and a 120 day continuance was required to allow alternate counsel to prepare, the mistrial was legally necessary because the jury had already been sworn and it would have caused extremely difficult problems to recall the jury 120 days later. Because appellant had the ability to pay his $5,200. restitution…

View Full Summary