In Re Daniels

California Court of Appeal Dec 24, 1930 No. Docket No. 1143.Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a prisoner is not entitled to credit against a state prison sentence for time served in a county jail for a misdemeanor committed while on parole. Consequently, the order granting the writ of habeas corpus was reversed.

Issues

Whether a prisoner is entitled to credit on a state prison sentence for time served in a county jail for a misdemeanor committed while on parole.
Whether Penal Code section 669 allows for concurrent sentencing in this case.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the term of imprisonment served by a prisoner in a county jail as punishment for a misdemeanor committed during the period of parole may not be credited on a pending state prison commitment.”

MR. JUSTICE THOMPSON (R. L.) Delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This is an appeal from an order granting a writ of

habeas corpus.

The petitioner was released on bond pending the appeal.

The petitioner was convicted of a felony and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison at San Quentin. He was received at that prison June 27, 1925. The prison board subsequently fixed his term of imprisonment at five years. He was released on parole. October 23, 1928, during his parole, he was convicted of a misdemeanor and sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail at Los Angeles for the term of six months. He served his term in the county jail, which sentence terminated May 13, 1929. The petitioner was thereupon returned to the state prison at

[639]

Folsom to complete his sentence upon the charge of the felony. May 18, 1929, the prison board found him guilty of a violation of his parole. Pursuant to section 1588 of the Penal Code, as it then existed, the prison board revoked all of the petitioner’s past and future time credits. Without the benefit of time credits the petitioner’s term of imprisonment in the state prison expired June 28, 1930, provided the intervening period of six months during which he was imprisoned in the Los Angeles county jail is credited upon his state prison term. Upon a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus,

which was presented to the Superior Court of Sacramento County on September 13, 1930, the writ was granted and the warden of Folsom state prison was directed to discharge the prisoner. From this order the people of the state of California appealed. The petitioner was admitted to bail pending the appeal.

It is contended by the petitioner that his term of imprisonment in the county jail at Los Angeles, under the provisions of section 669 of the Penal Code, ran concurrently with his state prison term and that he was entitled to credit on the last-mentioned term for the intervening time which he served in the county jail.

This precise question has been determined adversely to the petitioner.

(In re Forbes,

In Re Daniels

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief