People v. Engquist

California Court of Appeal Jan 31, 1990 No. C005569Published

Before: Carr

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant is entitled to good time conduct credits for presentence time spent at a diagnostic facility pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.03, and that the trial court satisfied rule 433(b) by making sufficient factual findings regarding potential future sentencing.

Issues

Whether a defendant is entitled to good time conduct credits for time spent at a diagnostic facility prior to sentencing.
Whether the trial court failed to make required factual findings under rule 433(b) regarding potential future sentencing upon revocation of probation.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Implicit in our holding is that offenders, whether youthful or adult, accrue good time credit for presentence time spent at a diagnostic facility pursuant to section 1203.03.”

“Since defendant is statutorily entitled to conduct credits for time spent at the diagnostic facility, he is entitled to 110 days of credit.”

“When relevant factual findings are made, remand is unnecessary as the court can make findings explicitly tailored towards imposition of the upper or lower term if probation should be revoked.”

Opinion

CARR, J.

A jury convicted defendant of possession of cocaine for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.) Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for three years with the condition he serve one year in the county jail. On appeal, defendant contends: 1) he was denied presentence custody credits; and 2) the court erred under rule 433(b)

in failing to make factual findings which would justify imposition of the upper or lower term should probation be revoked.

With respect to custody credits the record discloses that defendant was in the county jail from May 14, 1987, until May 16, 1987. After his conviction (on July 29, 1988) defendant was sent to the Department of Corrections for a diagnostic study on August 22, 1988, and returned to the county jail on September 20, 1988. Defendant remained in the county jail until his sentencing on October 31, 1988. The total actual time of these dates is 74 days. The probation report erroneously indicates a sum total of 75 days, counting September 20 twice. Good time credits pursuant to Penal Code section 4019

would add 2 days for every 4 days of actual time, resulting in an additional 36 days of credit for a total of 110 custody credit days. The reporter’s transcript does not show an actual calculation of credits by the court, but the probation order discloses 45 days of credit.

Defendant asserts he is entitled to the full 110 days of custody credits, which he erroneously calculates as 112 days. The People assert defendant is not entitled to good time credits for time spent at a diagnostic facility. The People err.

Section 1203.03, subdivision (g) provides: “Time spent by a defendant in confinement in a diagnostic facility of the Department of Corrections pursuant to this section or as an inpatient of the California Rehabilitation Center shall be credited on the term of imprisonment in state prison, if any, to which defendant is sentenced in the case.” This statute itself does not specifically authorize good time, or even actual credits to defendant for time

[231]

People v. Engquist

AI Brief

CARR, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief