In Re Martinez

California Court of Appeal Feb 20, 2002 No. B150882Published

Before: Woods

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. When a criminal conviction is reversed, the time spent in custody between the original sentencing and the subsequent resentencing must be characterized as "presentence" time, entitling the defendant to credits under Penal Code section 4019 rather than post-sentence credits.

Issues

Whether time served in custody between an original conviction and a subsequent conviction following reversal constitutes "presentence" time for credit calculation purposes.
Whether the Three Strikes law's 20 percent conduct credit limitation applies to time served prior to a new conviction following the reversal of an original conviction.

Disposition. granted

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Martinez's time in custody from the date of her original sentence in July 1996, until her subsequent conviction and resentence on August 19, 1999, can only be characterized as "presentence" time.”

“The reversal of her original conviction changed her custody status to that of a pre-trial detainee. Consequently, for the purposes of calculation of credits the character of her time in custody also changed to "presentence" time.”

“Given that the 1,092 days constitute "presentence" time, section 4019 determines the credits calculation.”

114 Cal.Rptr.2d 136 (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 191 In re Pamela C. MARTINEZ, on Habeas Corpus.

No. B150882. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven.

December 5, 2001. Review Granted February 20, 2002. Elizabeth A. Courtenay, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Paul D. Gifford, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Susan Duncan Lee, Supervising Attorney General, and Matthew D. Mandelbaum, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent.

WOODS, J.

Pamela C. Martinez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming the court and California Department of Corrections (CDC) miscalculated her custody credits and has therefore held her beyond her proper release date. Martinez is correct. CDC's credits calculation failed to take into account the fact Martinez's original conviction had been reversed. Thus, the CDC miseharacterized the nature of 1,092 days Martinez spent in custody from the date of her original conviction in July 1996 until July 1999, when the court reversed the conviction. Martinez's 1,092 days in custody should have been characterized as "presentence" time and her custody credits should have been calculated under Penal [137] Code section 4019.[1] We grant the petition.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In February 1995, Martinez was arrested for theft and burglary. On December 11, 1995, she was convicted of petty theft with prior convictions. On July 9, 1996, the court sentenced her to 25 years to life under the Three Strikes Law. In March 1999, this Court granted Martinez habeas corpus petition on her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. On July 6, 1999, Martinez's conviction and sentence were reversed.

The trial court granted a new trial and Martinez was remanded to custody. On August 19, 1999, the trial court struck one of Martinez's priors pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 789, 917 P.2d 628, and Martinez pled guilty to petty theft. The trial court imposed a nine-year prison sentence. The abstract of judgment showed the original December 11, 1995, conviction date with an August 19, 1999, sentence date, gave Martinez credit for 2,475 days in custody (1,650 actual and 825 conduct). The abstract indicated the sentence was imposed pursuant to a ruling on a Romero motion. Based on the abstract of judgment, May 27, 2001, was listed as her earliest release date.

In Re Martinez

AI Brief

WOODS, J.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSTION

NOTES

AI Brief