People v. Delgado
210 Cal. App. 4th 761
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- .defendant Fernando Delgado was charged in Kern County with DV-related offenses after a February–March 2010 incident.
- On November 4, 2010, Delgado pled no contest to three counts including willful corporal injury, criminal threats, and false imprisonment, with a five year four month prison term agreed.
- Sentencing occurred July 22, 2011, after a prior failure to appear date, resulting in a total term of five years four months and a restitution/fees order.
- The court awarded Delgado 201 days of actual custody credit and 100 days of conduct credit (301 total) and found him ineligible for half-time credits under former § 2933(e)(3).
- Delgado later argued for additional custody credits under amended § 4019 effective October 1, 2011, invoking equal protection; the Attorney General moved to dismiss under § 1237.1.
- The Court held § 1237.1 does not require dismissal; it analyzes whether the issue concerns a mere mathematical/clerical error rather than a substantive determination of which statute applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1237.1 requires dismissal. | Delgado | Delgado | Not dismissal; merits addressed |
| Whether presentence credits should be recalculated under amended § 4019. | Delgado seeks additional credits under the amended statute. | Delgado argues equal protection entitles him to more credits. | Denied; no additional § 4019 credits |
| What interpretation of § 1237.1 governs. | Delgado reads § 1237.1 narrowly to cover only math errors. | AG argues broader interpretation applies. | Court adopts narrowly: applies to math/clerical errors, not to choosing statute |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Connor, 115 Cal.App.4th 669 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (appeal rights are statutory)
- Acosta v. People, 48 Cal.App.4th 411 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1996) (section 1237.1 prerequisites for appeal; judicial economy)
- Fares v. City of Glendale, 16 Cal.App.4th 954 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) (clerical/math credit error example; misuse of appeal)
- People v. Flores, 30 Cal.4th 1059 (Cal. 2003) (guidelines on statutory interpretation and extrinsic aids)
- People v. Sinohui, 28 Cal.4th 205 (Cal. 2002) (interpretation consistent with legislative intent)
- People v. Garcia, 209 Cal.App.4th 530 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2012) (summarizes amendments to custody credits)