People v. Hul, 152 Cal. Rptr. 3d 319

Hul was convicted of possessing a usable quantity of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) for an offense on May 26, 2011; arrest and jail booking occurred the same day.
He remained in jail without bail through the October 2011 jury verdict and sentencing, when the court imposed a 16-month term that would have been prison time but for Realignment Act effects.
Under Realignment, the court remanded Hul to local custody to serve his term, with eligibility for presentence credits governed by the county jail rate rather than state prison credits.
Hul received 156 days of actual time and 78 days of conduct credits (234 total) at sentencing; he argued for 312 total days by full, day-for-day presentence credits.
The trial court, interpreting § 4019 as applied post-Realignment, awarded half-time conduct credits for jail custody; Hul contends prior-law credits would have been full day-for-day since the 16-month term would have been served in state prison under prior law.
The appellate court held Hul is entitled to full, day-for-day presentence conduct credits, calculated as prior law would have provided, resulting in 312 total days of presentence credit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper rate for presentence conduct credits for Hul	Hul is entitled to full, day-for-day credits	Credits are half-time for jail custody under former § 4019	Hul receives full day-for-day credits
Effect of Realignment on applying prior-law credits for pre-October 1, 2011 offenses	Prior law governs pre-October 1, 2011 offenses; day-for-day applies	Realignment dictates jail-credit framework; half-time applies	Prior law applies; day-for-day credits

People v. Loeun, 17 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1997) (statutory interpretation employing plain meaning when unambiguous)
People v. Sinohui, 28 Cal.4th 205 (Cal. 2002) (interpretation of presentence credits under prior and post-Realignment frameworks)