People v. Santa Ana
247 Cal. App. 4th 1123
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Appellant Jamie Feliciano Santa Ana was on probation in an earlier Monterey County case when she was arrested for misdemeanor petty theft in December 2013 and held in custody under dual restraints (theft arrest plus a probation hold).
- At a joint February 14, 2014 hearing, the trial court revoked and reinstated probation in the earlier case and imposed a 165-day county jail term (credited for 165 days).
- In the theft case the court granted probation but imposed a consecutive 10-day county jail term as a condition of probation and awarded no custody credits against that consecutive probationary term.
- Appellant appealed arguing she was entitled to credit for the same presentence custody period against both probationary jail terms because the custody was entirely attributable to the single theft offense.
- The appellate division affirmed (2–1), relying on the view that section 2900.5(b) permits awarding credit only once for a single period of custody attributable to multiple offenses for which a consecutive sentence is imposed; the case was transferred to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 2900.5(b) bars awarding custody credit twice for a single period of presentence custody when a probationary jail term in one case is ordered consecutive to a probationary jail term in another case | The People: statutory language and legislative history bar duplicative credits when consecutive terms are imposed | Santa Ana: the custody was attributable only to the single theft; a probationary jail term is not a "sentence" for purposes of § 2900.5(b), so consecutive "sentences" were not imposed; she should get dual credits | Held for the People: § 2900.5(b)’s second sentence applies—single period of custody subject to dual restraints can be "attributable to multiple offenses," and credits may be given only once when consecutive terms (including probationary jail terms) are imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Rojas, 23 Cal.3d 152 (Cal. 1978) (a defendant serving unrelated sentence is not entitled to duplicate presentence credits for later conviction)
- In re Joyner, 48 Cal.3d 487 (Cal. 1989) (duplicate credits for custody already credited elsewhere require showing that but for the later proceedings the defendant would have been free)
- People v. Bruner, 9 Cal.4th 1178 (Cal. 1995) (applies strict-causation "but for" test where presentence custody may be attributable to multiple unrelated acts)
- People v. Cooksey, 95 Cal.App.4th 1407 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (construes "single period of custody attributable to multiple offenses" to include periods where dual restraints exist and supports awarding credit only once when consecutive terms are imposed)
- People v. Blunt, 186 Cal.App.3d 1594 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (dual credits require dual restraints; defendant not entitled to credit where no overlapping restraint existed)
- People v. Williams, 10 Cal.App.4th 827 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (defendant entitled to credit where presentence custody was wholly attributable to the conduct of conviction)