231 Cal. App. 4th 1119
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Phoenix was convicted in Sacramento and Yolo counties and later had sentences consolidated in Yolo under sections 669, 1170.1(a), and rule 4.452.
- The central dispute is whether the Yolo court must recalculate custody credits for the Sacramento case when imposing the consolidated sentence.
- Sacramento abstract shows a 32-month term and 12 days presentence credit; subsequent events concerning custody credits are not fully documented in the record.
- Following consolidation, the Yolo court awarded 181 days of custody credits, with some credits from state hospital time in dispute.
- Appellate counsel sought to have the Sacramento credits recalculated by the Yolo court, arguing the consolidated sentence required inter-county credit accounting.
- The trial court initially refused to modify Sacramento credits, citing lack of jurisdiction; the record showed complex custody time across jail, hospitals, and multiple counties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must the sentencing court for a consolidated term award custody credits from the earlier case in a different county? | People contend Sacramento must recalculate credits. | Phoenix contends the Sacramento court or unrelated system controls, not the consolidating court. | Yes; the consolidating court must calculate and award all relevant credits, including from the earlier case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lacebal v. People, 233 Cal.App.3d 1061 (1991) (consolidation credits required for earlier case when resentencing under 1170.1 and rule 4.452)
- People v. Saibu, 191 Cal.App.4th 1005 (2011) (court must determine presentence credits on consolidated sentences)
- In re Rojas, 23 Cal.3d 152 (1979) (credit not given for time while already in custody under another sentence)
- People v. Montalvo, 128 Cal.App.3d 57 (1982) (trial court may obtain information from probation or CDCR to determine credits)
- People v. Torres, 212 Cal.App.4th 440 (2012) (unused credits may be allocated to newer sentence to avoid dead time)
- In re Marquez, 30 Cal.4th 14 (2003) (allocation of credits when prior sentence reversed and new sentence imposed)