People v. Odom

California Court of Appeal Jun 22, 1989 No. C004584Published

Before: Marler

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A defendant is entitled to presentence custody credit for time spent in another jurisdiction only if they demonstrate 'strict causation,' meaning they would have been at liberty but for the hold related to the current proceedings. The court held the defendant was entitled to credit only for the period after his release on his own recognizance in the other jurisdiction, as the hold was the sole cause of his continued detention during that time.

Issues

Whether a defendant is entitled to presentence custody credit for time spent in custody in another jurisdiction on unrelated charges while a probation hold is pending.
What standard of proof is required to establish that presentence custody is 'attributable' to a specific offense under Penal Code section 2900.5.

Disposition. modified and affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We hold that a period of time previously credited against a sentence for unrelated offenses cannot be deemed ‘attributable to proceedings’ resulting in a later-imposed sentence unless it is demonstrated that the claimant would have been at liberty”

“duplicative credits against separately imposed concurrent sentences for unrelated offenses will be granted only on a showing of strict causation.”

“mere assertions of counsel at sentencing that defendant was prepared to obtain his freedom by posting bail do not prove his further incarceration was solely because of the Sacramento hold.”

[909]

Opinion

MARLER, J.

In this case we are asked to consider the denial of presentence custody credit in a dual custody context in light of our Supreme Court’s recent decision in

In re Joyner

(1989) 48 Cal.3d 487 [256 Cal.Rptr. 785, 769 P.2d 967]. Defendant was sentenced to four years in state prison following revocation of probation. He received no credit for a period prior to sentencing during which he was in custody in another county on unrelated charges even though a probation hold had been placed on him in connection with this matter. Defendant contends he is entitled to credit for this period. We agree in part and shall modify the judgment accordingly.

Facts

Defendant originally pleaded guilty to petty theft by one previously convicted of a theft offense (Pen. Code, § 666) and was sentenced to four years in state prison.

Execution of sentence was stayed, and he was placed on four years probation on condition he spend nine months in county jail. Defendant was subsequently charged with a probation violation and ordered to appear in court on June 26, 1987. When he failed to appear, a bench warrant was issued and probation was revoked.

On July 24, 1987, defendant was arrested in Placer County on unrelated charges. Learning of his arrest, Sacramento County placed a probation hold on him on July 27. On August 12 defendant pleaded guilty in Placer County and bail was set at $2,500. He remained in custody in Placer County pending sentencing and disposition of the Sacramento County proceedings.

Defendant was released on his own recognizance by Placer County on October 13, but remained in custody until he was booked in Sacramento County jail on October 21. Thereafter he admitted the probation violation and was ordered to serve the sentence previously imposed. In computing presentence credits, the court awarded 270 days for the earlier county jail confinement, 54 days for county jail confinement from October 21 to November 7, 1987, and from April 20 to May 25, 1988, plus 27 days of conduct credits, for a total of 351 days. Defendant was given no credit for the period from July 27 to October 21, 1987.

People v. Odom

AI Brief

MARLER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief