People v. Wolfenbarger

California Court of Appeal Dec 23, 1977 No. Docket Nos. 31513, 31274, 31270Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Penal Code section 2900.5 entitles defendants to back time credit for court-ordered time spent in residential rehabilitation facilities, regardless of whether the facility is publicly or privately operated. However, the court declined to grant relief because the defendant's impending release rendered the matter moot.

Issues

Whether Penal Code section 2900.5 requires back time credit for time spent in a privately operated residential drug treatment program.
Whether the trial court erred in denying credit solely because the time was served in a drug program.
Whether the court can grant effective relief when the defendant is scheduled for release before the opinion becomes final.

Disposition. Appeal dismissed; petitions for habeas corpus denied.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Penal Code section 2900.5 requires s<back time credit” for court ordered time spent in a “work furlough facility, halfway house, [or] rehabilitation facility” whether the institution is govemmentally or privately operated”

“The private, as opposed to public, management of the facility is irrelevant to the determination of that issue.”

[203]

Opinion

THOMPSON, J.

Two petitions for habeas corpus and an appeal from a judgment committing Larry Steven Wolfenbarger to state prison for a violation of probation raise the identical issue of a convicted defendant’s entitlement to “back time credit” for periods spent in a “residential” private drug treatment program required as a condition of probation. We conclude: (1) Penal Code section 2900.5 requires s<back time credit” for court ordered time spent in a “work furlough facility, halfway house, [or] rehabilitation facility” whether the institution is govemmentally or privately operated; (2) the trial court erred in denying consideration of Wolfenbarger’s motion for back time credit solely because the period related to “drug program time”; (3) ordinarily the error would require remanding the matter to the sentencing court for an evidentiary hearing to determine the nature of Wolfenbarger’s commitment to. the “residential” privately operated drug treatment program and to determine the effect of a stipulation to credit for back time; (4) but, because Wolfenbarger is scheduled for release from state prison before this opinion can become final, we cannot give effective relief.

Accordingly, we discharge an order to show cause on a petition for habeas corpus issued by the Supreme Court and returnable before us. Because action on that order to show cause disposes of the only issue in a related appeal filed in Division Five of this court and transferred to us, and also disposes of a second petition for habeas corpus involving the identical issue also transferred from Division Five, we dismiss the appeal and deny the second petition.

Facts

On September 16, 1974, Wolfenbarger pled guilty, in the Ventura County Superior Court, to grand theft. On October 11, he was placed on probation conditioned in part upon his attending “the program offered at Cri-Help on a residential basis until allowed to terminated [s/c] by his probation officer.” The petitions for habeas corpus allege and the People’s return does not deny that Wolfenbarger remained in the Cri-Help program until January 27, 1975, a total of 185 days.

On August 12, 1975, Wolfenbarger was found in violation of probation and his probation was modified to require that he spend 30 days in county jail. On March 24, 1976, in the Santa Barbara County Superior Court, Wolfenbarger pled guilty to second degree burglary. After a

People v. Wolfenbarger

AI Brief

THOMPSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief