People v. McZeal CA3

California Court of Appeal Nov 23, 2015 No. C074751Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the defendant was entitled to equitable custody credits because the prosecution's failure to bring him to trial within the statutory period denied him the opportunity for concurrent sentencing.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in awarding the defendant equitable custody credits for time served while awaiting trial on a separate charge.
Whether the prosecution's failure to comply with Penal Code section 1381 violated the defendant's equal protection rights.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Court finds that equitable credits are allowed under the Crockett case and that [defendant] is an appropriate candidate for that. The Court will then add 72 days of credit.”

“Accordingly, we find the court correctly gave defendant equitable credits for time he served in prison, beginning with the date the prior proceedings were dismissed.”

Filed 11/23/15 P. v. McZeal CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C074751

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. CRF131666)

RONALD JAMES McZEAL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Ronald James McZeal asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. The People also filed a cross-appeal and contend the trial court erred in awarding defendant duplicate custody credits. We are not persuaded and affirm.

BACKGROUND In May 2010, following his conviction in Alameda County for possession of concentrated cannabis, defendant was placed on probation and ordered to spend 88 days in county jail. In December 2010, his supervision was transferred to Solano County. On December 4, 2011, defendant engaged law enforcement officers in a high- speed chase in Yolo County. That chase ended when defendant crashed his car; he suffered serious injuries as a result of the crash. Defendant was treated at UC Davis Medical Center and later released without being arrested. On February 22, 2012, the Yolo County District Attorney charged defendant with reckless driving while evading a police officer. A warrant issued the following day. On September 14, 2012, the Solano County Superior Court revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced him to two years for his cannabis conviction. On January 30, 2013, the Yolo County District Attorney received defendant’s demand for trial under Penal Code1 section 1381. On February 5, 2013, the Yolo County District Attorney applied for an order removing defendant from custody in Solano County and transporting him to Yolo County for trial; an order issued two days later. Defendant was then transported to the Yolo County Jail on March 20, 2013. Trial was set for April 29, 2013, but there were no available courtrooms that day. The following day, the Yolo County District Attorney refiled the complaint charging defendant with reckless driving while evading a police officer. At his arraignment on May 1, 2013, defendant requested four to six weeks to hire his own attorney. Defendant knew his sentence in Solano County was ending in less than 30 days. The court set the case for May 10, 2013, and defendant waived time to that date. The court set the preliminary examination for May 20, 2013.

People v. McZeal CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C074751

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief