People v. Tinker, 212 Cal. App. 4th 1502

Defendant Alan Charles Tinker pleaded no contest to transportation of methamphetamine and possession for sale, with prior substance conviction enhancements admitted.
The court imposed two-year terms for both substantive counts concurrently and a three-year term for one prior enhancement, with 198 days actual custody and 98 days conduct credit.
Defendant argued the court violated Penal Code 654 by not staying the concurrent term for possession for sale, and that he was entitled additional pre-sentence conduct credit under former § 2933(e).
The Attorney General conceded eligibility for the former § 2933(e) credit but argued only CDCR could award it; trial court had authority to award presentence conduct credit.
At sentencing, the court stated 654 applied, but later stayed the possession-for-sale term and imposed concurrent counts; it did not award former § 2933(e) credit.
The appellate court modified the judgment to stay the possession-for-sale term under § 654 and award 100 additional days of presentence conduct credit under former § 2933(e).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 654 requires staying the possession-for-sale term	Tinker argues two offenses were indivisible with one intent.	State argues multiple intents supported the concurrent term.	Concurred with defendant; stay required
Whether former § 2933(e) presentence conduct credit should be awarded and who administers it	Tinker entitled to one-for-one credit; trial court should award it.	Credit eligibility is CDCR’s responsibility under former § 2933(e).	Trial court entitled to award, CDCR to administer; credit awarded

People v. Brown, 54 Cal.4th 314 (Cal. 2012) (addressed retroactivity of conduct credits; CDCR authority noted in footnote)