People v. Kaufman CA1/1

Filed 2/18/15 P. v. Kaufman CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A141744

v. (Contra Costa County JOEL DAVID KAUFMAN, Super. Ct. No. 01-161889-1) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Joel David Kaufman participated in an electronic monitoring program while awaiting trial on sex crimes charges. After he entered a plea agreement, the trial court granted defendant custody credits with respect to his period of home detention. The district attorney contends the grant was erroneous. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Defendant was charged in an amended complaint, filed April 23, 2013, with five felony and three misdemeanor counts involving sex crimes against minors. A fourth misdemeanor charge was added later. He ultimately pleaded guilty to six of the charges and was sentenced to a term of 10 years 8 months. Following the filing of the original complaint in March 2013, defendant surrendered and posted bail. In April 2013, the prosecution discovered additional victims, filed the amended complaint, and moved to revoke or increase defendant’s bail. As a condition of continued release on bail, defendant was required to participate in the county’s electronic home monitoring program. The program required him to wear an

electronic monitor at all times, and he was subject to arrest if he violated the terms of the program. At the time of sentencing, defendant sought custody credits for his time spent in the home monitoring program. The parties stipulated to the following description of the program: “It is the type of program that actually tracks the participant, not just sounds an alarm if he leaves a certain area. “As part of that program he was ordered to abstain from the use of alcohol and drugs, and to submit to . . . alcohol and blood testing. “He was to remain within the confines of his house unless given specific permission to leave the home. “He had to request permission to confer with his lawyer. “He had to request permission to visit his doctor. “He had to request permission to attend therapy. “He had to request permission to attend his business. In this case, he got permission to tend to his business once or twice a week, for about two hours on each occasion. “All the exceptions were in the discretion of the Sheriff’s supervisor and had to be pre-approved. “And he had to meet face-to-face with the supervisor once per week.”1 The trial court granted the requested credits. II. DISCUSSION The district attorney contends the trial court erred in granting custody credits to defendant in connection with his time in the electronic home monitoring program. Custody credits are governed by Penal Code2 section 2900.5, which was amended in 2011 to grant such credits for “days served in home detention pursuant to