Skip to content
Name: People v. Fong
Case #: H037245
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/18/2013

Defendant who pleaded guilty to assault and inflicting great bodily injury was properly limited to 15 percent conduct credit. Defendant entered into a plea agreement under which he was promised a 17-year sentence for assault and inflicting great bodily injury. During the plea colloquy, he was advised that his credit would be limited to 15 percent. On appeal, Fong challenged the application of Penal Code section 2933.1 to him, arguing that the admission of a Penal Code section 12022.7 enhancement allegation associated with his 2009 felony offense did not bring him within the provisions of Penal Code section…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Clancey
Case #: S200158
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 04/18/2013

To demonstrate that a trial court has given a valid indicated sentence rather than engaged in prohibited judicial plea bargaining, the record must reflect that the term is appropriate regardless of whether defendant pled or went to trial. Over objections of the prosecution, appellant pled guilty to all charges and enhancements alleged against him after being told he would receive a particular punishment. He was sentenced to five years in prison after the trial court struck a strike prior and an on bail enhancement. The prosecution appealed, claiming the trial court engaged in prohibited judicial plea bargaining. The Court of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Tinker
Case #: H037306
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/24/2013

Defendant was entitled to enhanced credits under former Penal Code section 2933, subdivision (e) and trial court was authorized to award them. Tinker pled guilty to drug offenses. The court imposed a sentence, awarding half time credits. On appeal, Tinker claimed he was entitled to day-for-day credits under former Penal Code section 2933, subdivision (e). The Attorney General conceded his eligibility for the credits under that section, but claimed only CDCR had jurisdiction to award them. Held: Appellant awarded credits. Tinker's offense occurred in February of 2011, at a time when the September 28, 2010 version of former section 2933,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hul
Case #: G046040
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 01/29/2013

Defendant whose offense predated October 1, 2011, is entitled to day-for-day presentence credit under former Penal Code section 2933, subdivision (e). Hul's drug offense was committed on May 26, 2011. After conviction he was sentenced to county jail in early October, 2011. He appealed an award of half time credits. Held: Additional credits awarded. At the time of appellant's offense, Penal Code section 4019 allowed two days of conduct credit for every four days served, for prisoners sentenced to county jail. At the same time, former section 2933, subdivision (e) provided day-for-day credits for qualified offenders sentenced to state prison.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Torres
Case #: A133729
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 12/24/2012

The strict causation rule of People v. Bruner (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1178 does not apply when defendant is not seeking duplicate credits. Appellant was serving a two-year prison term for a Sonoma County case when he entered a guilty plea in a Mendocino County case and admitted violating probation in another case. By the terms of the Mendocino County plea bargain, he was resentenced to a consecutive sentence of eight months for the Sonoma County case. As a result, the sentence was completed months before the resentencing. The trial court declined to award the excess time from the date when…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Rajanayagam
Case #: G046044
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 11/15/2012

Denial of enhanced conduct credits under Penal Code section 4019, effective October 1, 2011, to a defendant who committed his offense prior to October 1, 2011 does not violate equal protection. Appellant was convicted of offenses that occurred on August 20, 2011. He was sentenced on October 31, 2011. The trial court applied section 4019 as it existed on the date of the offense when it awarded appellant presentence conduct credit. On appeal, he contended he was entitled to additional conduct credit under the October 1, 2011 version of section 4019 for his time served in local custody from…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Delgado
Case #: F063396
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/26/2012

The requirement that errors in the calculation of presentence credits be presented to the trial court before being raised on appeal (Pen. Code, § 1237.1) does not apply where appellant challenges more than mathematical or clerical errors. Appellant was charged by a July 8, 2010 information with various domestic violence offenses. On November 4, 2010 he pled no contest to spousal battery (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422) and false imprisonment (Pen. Code, § 236). He was sentenced to prison on July 22, 2011 and awarded presentence credits of 201 actual days and…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Verba
Case #: B236054
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 10/31/2012

Sex offender is not entitled to retroactive benefit of October 1, 2011 increase in presentence custody credits. Defendant, who committed his offense prior to October 1, 2011, sought the benefits of increased presentence custody credits based on revisions to Penal Code section 4019. Held: Denied. Preliminarily, the court found that section 1237.1 was not a procedural bar because appellant did not contend the trial court erred in calculating credits under the version of section 4019 in effect at his August 2011 sentencing. On the merits, the court found appellant not entitled to the enhanced credits based on equal protection, although…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lynch
Case #: C068476
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/13/2012

Prospective application of the 2011 Realignment Act does not violate equal protection. The Realignment Act, which is prospective and limits its application to defendants sentenced on or after October 1, 2011, provides for changes in the sentencing law, including calculation of presentence time credits and housing for the convicted felon. As a result of its prospective application, a defendant who committed his crime after October 1, 2011, may receive more beneficial credit calculation and housing placement than a defendant who committed his crime prior to October 1, 2011. In this case, the court found no equal protection violation…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Kennedy
Case #: H037668
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/14/2012

An appellant whose parole was revoked only for the same conduct as in his criminal case was entitled to presentence custody credit because he established that the conduct leading to his sentence was the "but for" cause of the presentence custody. In October 2011, appellant was convicted of a violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1) (assault likely to cause great bodily injury) and admitted a prior "strike" crime. The offense occurred on March 11, 2011. On November 17, 2011, he was sentenced to four years in prison. The trial court declined to award presentence credits…

View Full Summary