In Re Taylor

California Court of Appeal May 26, 1982 No. Crim. 41932Published

Before: Ashby

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A defendant sentenced to state prison after being excluded from the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC) program is not entitled to receive sentence credit for time spent on CRC outpatient status. The court held that the Legislature intentionally excluded such credits and that this denial does not violate equal protection guarantees.

Issues

Whether a defendant is entitled to sentence credit for time spent as a CRC outpatient when subsequently sentenced to state prison.
Whether the denial of credit for CRC outpatient status violates equal protection requirements.

Disposition. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Legislature has considered it and has decided that no such credit should be given.”

“Time spent on outpatient status is not the equivalent of time spent in custody and we see no constitutional impediment to withholding credit for outpatient status from addicts sentenced to state prison.”

Opinion

ASHBY, J.

Petitioner, via a petition for writ of habeas corpus, seeks credit against his prison sentence for time spent as a California Rehabilitation Center (CRC) outpatient. Although the issue is cognizable on an appeal from the judgment which sentenced him to state prison, we issued an order to show cause because if petitioner’s contentions were

[262]

correct, he would be eligible for immediate release from custody. Our review of the law leads us to conclude, however, that petitioner is not eligible for the additional credits he seeks.

Petitioner was ordered committed to CRC, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051, on September 21, 1978.

Petitioner was released on outpatient status on March 5, 1979. He spent additional time in CRC custody from March 10, 1980, to May 6, 1980,

before again being released on outpatient status. Petitioner absconded from CRC supervision in November 1980. In June 1981 the Department of Corrections formally found him unsuitable for further participation in the CRC program, and recofnmended that the section 3051 commitment be vacated. A bench warrant for petitioner’s arrest issued on July 30, 1981. On November 25, 1981, petitioner was sentenced to state prison. He was given credit on his sentence for 210 days spent in custody at CRC. On December 10, 1981, the judgment was ordered corrected to award petitioner an additional 105 days of behavior credits for his inpatient CRC time. Petitioner argues that pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 3201, subdivision (c), he is entitled to have the behavior credits disregarded and his outpatient time credited instead.

Welfare and Institutions Code section 3201 sets limits on the maximum duration of CRC commitments. Paragraph 1 of subdivision (c) of section 3201 provides that following a commitment under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051, a person must be released on parole to the narcotic addict evaluation authority if he has spent time in CRC custody equal to the maximum time he could have spent in prison on the underlying criminal offense; including applicable good behavior and participation credits. Computation of the maximum allowable commitment under paragraph 1 of section 320Í, subdivision (c), expressly excludes time spent on outpatient status.

In Re Taylor

AI Brief

ASHBY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief