People v. Ford

Opinion

ASHBY, J.

By jury trial appellant was convicted on two counts of robbery with use of a firearm. He was sentenced to state prison and was given credit for 108 days in custody. The sole contention on appeal is that the court should have granted credit for an additional 100 days in custody.

Appellant was arrested in the instant case, No. A345223, on August 17, 1978. He was in custody until October 4, 1978, when he made bail.

[431]

On December 31, 1978, appellant was arrested and taken into custody in another case, No. A194350. No action was taken regarding his bail on the instant matter. Several of the court’s minute orders for proceedings in this case after December 31, 1978, reflect that appellant was on “bail” in “this” matter, but “in custody other matter.” Not until the instant jury verdict of April 9, 1979, was the bail exonerated in this case.

The trial court granted appellant credit of 108 days for his time in custody on the instant matter between his arrest on August 17, 1978, and release on bail on October 4, and between the jury verdict of April 9, 1979, and the sentencing hearing of June 8. Appellant contends he is also entitled to a credit of an additional 100 days for the period between his arrest on the other case on December 31, 1978, and the jury verdict in this case on April 9, 1979. This argument is without merit.

Penal Code section 2900.5, subdivision (b), provides that credit shall be given only where the custody to be credited is attributable to proceedings related to the same conduct for which the defendant has been convicted. Appellant’s time in custody after his December 31, 1978, arrest on the other case, No. A1943 50, is not attributable to proceedings relating to the same conduct for which appellant has been convicted in the instant matter, No. A345223.

Appellant’s being in custody from December 31 to April 9 is attributable solely to the other proceedings.

1

There is no factual showing of any so-called dual basis for his custody and therefore appellant is not entitled to credit in this case.