People v. Lathrop

California Court of Appeal Feb 26, 1993 No. G012292Published

Before: Sonenshine

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A defendant held simultaneously on unrelated charges in different jurisdictions is entitled to presentence custody credits from the first court to impose a sentence, regardless of the pending status of the other case.

Issues

Whether a defendant held on simultaneous, unrelated charges in different jurisdictions is entitled to presentence custody credits from the first court to impose a sentence.

Disposition. Affirmed in part, remanded in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The first court to sentence should do so without regard to the other case, giving credit from the date the defendant was arrested on that case or a hold was placed due to it.”

“Thus, the defendant will receive credit once, and only once, for presentence custody time.”

Opinion

SONENSHINE, J.

Charles Philip Lathrop appeals the trial court’s denial of presentence credits in imposing a 16-month prison sentence for his drunk driving conviction. We affirm the judgment of conviction, but remand to allow a proper award of credits.

On May 17, 1991, Lathrop was arrested in Riverside County on an assault charge and bail was set at $20,000. The same day, Orange County placed a

[1403]

“hold” on him for this case, and bail was set at $10,000. On October 28, Lathrop was transported to Orange County jail. The Riverside case was deferred pending resolution of this case.

On January 14, 1992, Lathrop pleaded guilty on this case and the trial court sentenced him to 16 months in prison. The court refused to award any presentence custody credits, reasoning, “Mr. Lathrop is not entitled to any credit in the Orange County case, because he’s been in custody in the Riverside case. And, in fact, when the Riverside court sentences him, if the Riverside court sentences him, he will then be entitled to custody from the time of his arrest, until the time of his sentence.”

Discussion

Penal Code section 2900.5, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that “when [a] defendant has been in custody ... all days of custody . . . shall be credited upon his or her term of imprisonment . . . .” Subdivision (b) specifies, “For the purposes of this section, credit shall be given only where the custody to be credited is attributable to proceedings related to the same conduct for which the defendant has been convicted.”

The parties concede this case is governed by

In re Joyner, supra,

48 Cal.3d 487, although they disagree on what it held and on its application to these facts. Joyner sought presentence custody credits on a California prison term ordered to be served concurrent to a previously imposed Florida prison term for unrelated offenses. He argued he was entitled to credits “from the date a ‘hold’ was placed against him for the California offenses until he was sentenced in California,

People v. Lathrop

AI Brief

SONENSHINE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief