103 Cal.App.5th 333
Cal. Ct. App.2024Background:
- Christopher Lee Cofer was sentenced in a single hearing for five open criminal cases in Monterey County, California, receiving concurrent sentences as part of a plea agreement.
- The trial court awarded presentence custody credits in each case only for actual days spent in custody directly attributable to that particular case, following People v. Jacobs (2013).
- Cofer appealed, arguing he should receive credit for all presentence custody days toward all concurrent sentences, regardless of technical custody status (e.g., on bail in one case while in custody on another).
- The trial court partially granted additional credits but denied Cofer's main request for dual credits during periods he was technically out on bail or own recognizance in some cases but in custody on others.
- The appellate court panel disagreed with Jacobs and found statutory ambiguity as to credit allocation in this scenario, siding with Cofer and remanding for recalculation of credits.
- A dissent argued section 2900.5 does not permit dual credits unless custody is directly attributable to the conduct in the case credited, and the majority improperly reinterpreted binding precedent.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should a defendant sentenced concurrently on multiple cases at one hearing get presentence credit for all actual custody days in all such cases, even if technically out on bail/OR in some? | Only award credit for custody directly attributable to each proceeding; technical on-bail/OR status means no dual credit. | All actual custody days before concurrent sentencing should be credited toward all concurrent sentences to avoid inequitable results. | Yes; presentence credit must be awarded for all custody days toward all concurrent sentences resolved in a single hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Joyner, 48 Cal.3d 487 (Cal. 1989) (strict causation controls dual credits for presentence custody)
- People v. Bruner, 9 Cal.4th 1178 (Cal. 1995) (duplicative credits for concurrent sentences require strict causation)
- People v. Kunath, 203 Cal.App.4th 906 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (credits should apply to all simultaneous concurrent sentences)
- People v. Jacobs, 220 Cal.App.4th 67 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (prior rule limiting credits to technical custody in particular proceeding—disagreed with here)