230 Cal. App. 4th 1548
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant G.H. was charged with serious felonies and misdemeanors and arraigned in 2010; counsel raised doubt as to his competence and proceedings were suspended under Penal Code § 1368.
- After evaluations the court found G.H. incompetent and committed him to Patton State Hospital for restoration, with a commitment not to exceed three years less credit for time served; the court initially awarded 285 days of precommitment credits (actual + conduct).
- As the three‑year maximum approached, the People argued (relying on People v. Reynolds) that precommitment custody credits should not reduce the three‑year maximum commitment term under § 1370.
- The trial court concluded the prior credit award against the three‑year commitment was erroneous, amended the maximum commitment date, and returned G.H. to Patton; G.H. appealed.
- G.H. also argued that denying deduction of precommitment credits from the three‑year commitment violated due process and equal protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1370(a)(3)(C) requires deducting precommitment custody credits from a three‑year maximum commitment | Credits need not be applied to reduce the three‑year statutory maximum; Reynolds controls | § 1370(a)(3)(C) mandates a computation deducting time served from the maximum commitment term | Court held credits should not reduce the three‑year maximum when the statutory maximum commitment is the three‑year cap; affirmed trial court |
| Whether denying deduction of precommitment credits (based on crime level) violates due process/equal protection | No violation where the three‑year cap applies; defendant can still obtain credit against any later sentence if restored and convicted | Denial based on level of offense deprives defendant of equal protection and due process | Court held no due process/equal protection violation under these facts (Reynolds rationale): if sentence potential exceeds three years, credits need not reduce the three‑year commitment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Banks, 88 Cal.App.3d 864 (Banks held that precommitment jail time should be credited against commitment where failure to do so would create unequal treatment of indigent defendants)
- People v. Reynolds, 196 Cal.App.4th 801 (Reynolds held credits need not be applied to reduce the three‑year commitment where the three‑year cap, not the maximum sentence, governs)
- People v. Waterman, 42 Cal.3d 565 (Waterman held conduct credits are not awardable for pretrial confinement during incompetency commitment because they conflict with therapeutic goals)
- Conservatorship of Hofferber, 28 Cal.3d 161 (Hofferber recognized the three‑year limit is intended to satisfy due process by limiting incompetency commitment)
- In re Polk, 71 Cal.App.4th 1230 (Polk treated § 1370’s three‑year limit as applying to actual time spent in commitment)