People v. Hilger

California Court of Appeal Aug 18, 2005 No. B156790Published

Before: Rubin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant's waiver of custody credits is valid and applies to both county jail and state prison time unless the defendant expressly limits the scope of the waiver, even if the waiver results in total time exceeding the statutory maximum.

Issues

Whether a defendant's waiver of custody credits is invalid if the defendant was not advised that the waiver applied to state prison time.
Whether a custody credit waiver is invalid if it results in a total period of confinement exceeding the statutory maximum for the offense.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Arnold, supra, 33 Cal.4th 294, establishes that a trial court need not advise a defendant that a Johnson waiver ordinarily applies both to future confinement in county jail and state prison.”

“It further establishes that unless a defendant expressly limits his Johnson waiver, he waives use of his custody credits for all purposes.”

Opinion

RUBIN, J. —

Alexander M. Hilger appeals from the court’s order denying him custody credits against his prison sentence. We affirm.

[1530]

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In June 1998, police arrested appellant for assaulting his mother with a deadly weapon, an offense to which he pleaded guilty. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).) On December 4, 1998, the court sentenced him to the upper term of four years in state prison, but suspended the sentence and placed him on three years’ probation. The court ordered appellant as a condition of probation to complete a one-year residential substance abuse treatment program. In addition, the court required appellant to waive credit for the 169 days he spent in custody between his arrest and sentencing. It told him, “You are to receive no credit for the actual time you have been serving in the county jail up to this point in this case.”

Two months later, the court revoked appellant’s probation and remanded him to custody following his ejection from the treatment program on January 29, 1999. At appellant’s subsequent probation revocation hearing on April 23, 1999, the court reinstated probation, conditioned on appellant’s serving an additional year in county jail without credit for his almost two months in the treatment program in December and January. The court did, however, credit appellant for the 78 days he spent in custody between his discharge from the treatment program and the probation revocation hearing.

In January 2001, appellant’s probation was again revoked and he was returned to custody on February 7, 2001. The court reinstated probation at appellant’s April 4, 2001, probation revocation hearing, conditioned on his waiving credit for the time spent in custody and serving an additional year in county jail. The court told appellant, “You will be waiving any and all credits for any time you’ve served thus far.”

Five months later on September 14, 2001, appellant violated probation and was remanded to custody yet again after testing positive for alcohol and cocaine. Apparently in anticipation of going to prison for his latest violation, appellant moved to receive credit in prison for all the previous time he had spent in local custody, which he calculated as 362

People v. Hilger

AI Brief

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

AI Brief