212 Cal. App. 4th 440
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Torres was serving a two-year Sonoma County sentence when he pled guilty in Mendocino to related charges, triggering resentencing.
- The Mendocino court imposed a total term including a consecutive eight-month Sonoma reduction, shortening the Sonoma sentence from two years to eight months.
- Torres was in custody in Mendocino while the Sonoma sentence still existed, and credits were initially denied for time after the modified Sonoma sentence expired.
- The trial court awarded presentence credits for Mendocino and Sonoma time but did not credit time from August 11, 2011 to November 4, 2011 because custody was tied to the Mendocino and Sonoma proceedings.
- The court ultimately resentenced on November 4, 2011, and the presentence credits did not allocate the August–November custody to Mendocino.
- The opinion remands to determine custody attributable to the reduced Sonoma sentence and to award Mendocino credits for the remaining pre-Mendocino custody time; the judgment is affirmed as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| How should presentence credits be attributed for August–November 2011? | Torres argues credits should apply to Mendocino time after Sonoma finished. | Torres contends the period was not solely attributable to Mendocino due to ongoing Sonoma custody. | Time after the Sonoma sentence concluded should be credited to Mendocino. |
| Does reducing the Sonoma sentence affect credit allocation between cases? | The altered term should redirect credits to the controlling Mendocino case. | Credit allocation may remain limited by the original terms of the plea. | Once the Sonoma sentence was reduced, remaining custody was attributable to Mendocino and should be credited accordingly. |
| Was counsel ineffective for waiving additional sentencing time while in Sonoma custody? | Waiver caused unutilized credits to accrue toward Sonoma rather than Mendocino. | Counsel acted reasonably; postponement had no prejudicial impact here. | Counsel was not ineffective; postponement did not improperly affect credits. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bruner, 9 Cal.4th 1178 (Cal. 1995) (strict causation rule for presentence credits when multiple unrelated custody causes)
- In re Joyner, 48 Cal.3d 487 (Cal. 1989) (strict causation for custody properly crediting time attributable to multiple offenses)
- People v. Gonzalez, 138 Cal.App.4th 246 (Cal. App. 2006) (allows credits when not seeking duplicate credits; custody attributability among cases)
- People v. Marquez, 30 Cal.4th 14 (Cal. 2003) (windfall concerns and allocation of remaining custody credits)
- People v. Segura, 44 Cal.4th 921 (Cal. 2008) (plea agreements constrain sentencing in line with bargains)
- Ames v. State, 213 Cal.App.3d 1214 (Cal. App. 1989) (plea agreement binding when court approves terms)