People v. Busby CA1/1
A161125
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 23, 2021Background:
- Nov. 30–Dec. 2, 1998: Busby kidnapped a victim at gunpoint, was arrested, and federal charges were filed; he pled guilty in federal court and was sentenced to 18 years.
- Dec. 2, 1998: A state warrant issued; Busby was later extradited to Del Norte County and tried on state charges.
- Aug. 29, 2000: Jury convicted Busby of multiple state felonies (carjacking, robbery, burglary, assaults, false imprisonment, felon with a firearm).
- Sept. 28, 2000: State court sentenced Busby to 24 years, ordered to run consecutive to his federal sentence, and awarded no pretrial custody credits.
- May 14, 2020: Busby moved to correct his state sentence, seeking 667 days (Dec. 1, 1998–Sept. 28, 2000) of presentence custody credit under Penal Code §2900.5.
- Trial court denied the motion; on appeal the court affirmed, holding consecutive sentencing bars duplicate credit under §2900.5(b).
Issues:
| Issue | People’s Argument | Busby’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Busby was entitled to presentence custody credits on his state sentence for time in custody that overlapped his federal detention | Credits may not be given twice for the same custody period when a consecutive sentence is imposed | He was entitled to state-law credits for the period of mutual federal/state restraint; federal term shouldn’t negate state credit | The court held §2900.5(b) bars duplicate credit when a sentence is ordered consecutive; Busby not entitled to credits |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bruner, 9 Cal.4th 1178 (Cal. 1995) (§2900.5 prevents duplicative credits and explains statute’s purpose)
- People v. Santa Ana, 247 Cal.App.4th 1123 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (legislative history and rule disallow dual credits where custody attributable to multiple offenses and consecutive sentence imposed)
- People v. Cooksey, 95 Cal.App.4th 1407 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (consecutive subordinate term precludes presentence credit under §2900.5(b))
- People v. Kunath, 203 Cal.App.4th 906 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (policy behind §2900.5 applies when concurrent sentencing would equalize confinement, distinguishing consecutive sentencing)