People v. Goodson

Opinion

SPARKS, Acting P. J.

Defendant was convicted on his guilty of one count of grand theft from the person of another. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. 2.)

1

He was sentenced to serve 16 months in prison and received presentence custody credit for 15 days of actual custody and 8 days of work/conduc t credits. (§§ 2900.5, 4019.) On appeal defendant asserts claims for various additional periods of credits. We find merit in one and will therefore order additional credits awarded.

Facts

Defendant committed the present offense on September 12, 1987. He was arrested for that offense on September 13, 1987. At that time defendant had been released on his own recognizance pending resolution of charges in an unrelated case, No. 2274. On September 28 he was sentenced to serve nine months in jail on those charges. Defendant entered his plea in this case on October 13.

A condition of defendant’s plea agreement in this case was that he would be referred to a Department of Corrections diagnostic facility for presentence evaluation. (§ 1203.03.) The court issued an order committing defendant to that facility on October 15. He was released back to the custody of the Plumas County Sheriff on January 4, 1988.

Defendant was sentenced in this case on February 16, 1988. The court found defendant entitled to 15 days of actual custody credit, presumably for the September period of custody before defendant was sentenced on his other charges.

[280]

Discussion

Defendant makes two claims for custody credits. He contends first that he is entitled to credit for the entire period between his arrest and sentencing in this case. As a fallback position defendant seeks credit for the period during which he was being evaluated in the diagnostic facility. We find merit in only this latter claim.

2

Defendant is not entitled to credit either for the period between his sentencing on the unrelated charges and his section 1203.03 commitment or between his release from that commitment and his sentencing in this case. This is because defendant could not have been free from custody during those periods even apart from the charges in this case since he was serving a jail sentence for case No. 2274 during that time.