Daily Archives: June 4, 2026

Gary Musings, Trivia by Gary

Trivia by Gary 6/4/2026

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Trivia by Gary June 4, 2026

I’m pretty sure most of us know that a person who serves any time in jail up through sentencing gets credit for that pre-sentence time, assuming it’s attibutable to the reason the person is in jail. Prior to 1972 in California, a defendant was not entitled to credit for time spent in custody prior to conviction. Penal Code section 2900.5 was enacted in 1971.

It was originally to be applied prospectively only, but that was held to violate equal protection guarantees.

Keep in mind that California operated under the Indeterminate Sentence Law prior to 1977. Defendants were simply sentenced “to the term prescribed by law,” which usually involved a range, such as six months to life, or one to fourteen years. The Adult Authority was vested with the obligation to decide when a prisoner should be released.

Section 2900.5 has been amended many times. Of interest to me is that the 1976 version contained language in subdivision (c) that appeared to prevent judges from considering the amount of presentence credit when deciding what term should be imposed: “The credits provided by this section shall not be considered in establishing or fixing any condition of probation, parole date, or term of imprisonment; but such credits shall be applied to any such condition of probation, parole date, or term of imprisonment no later than one week after it has been established or fixed.”

Alas, that restriction is nowhere to be found today.

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case 000035

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

After the passage of Senate Bill No. 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), the court held a resentencing hearing at which it recalled defendant’s sentence, struck the prison prior enhancement, sentenced defendant to a term of 24 years, and set the matter for further resentencing. At the subsequent hearing, the court denied defendant’s motion to strike his 10-year gang enhancement, finding that granting it would endanger public safety. On appeal, defendant asserts the court erred in failing to conduct a full resentencing — specifically, that it did not consider Assembly Bill No. 333’s impact on his sentence. He also claims the court erred by considering his current dangerousness, rather than his future dangerousness upon release, and by not recalculating his custody credits at resentencing. The People concede that the matter should be remanded for a full resentencing and that defendant’s credits should be recalculated.

First Holding:

The matter must be remanded for a full resentencing. By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [the resentencing court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the sentence, and not just the portion subjected to the recall]

Second Holding:

Amendments made by Assembly Bill 333 regarding elements constituting gang misconduct applied retroactively.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206-1207

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740

People v. Burgos (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1, 28

Third Holding:

If the court determines the gang enhancement must be vacated, the People must be given the opportunity to retry the gang enhancement in compliance with the amendments brought about by Assembly Bill 333. The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial of a defendant whose conviction is set aside because of an error in the proceedings leading to conviction. If the People choose to retry it, the trial court is directed to conduct a full resentencing after that issue has been decided.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1207

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 669

United States v. Tateo (1964) 377 U.S. 463, 465

Fourth Holding:

If the court modifies a defendant’s sentence, then the court must recalculate the number of days that the defendant has already spent in custody and award those recalculated credits in the new abstract of judgment.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29, 37, 41

Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000034

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s imposition of probation conditions regarding association with minors, completion of a sex offender treatment program, polygraph examinations, possession of pornography, electronic search, and electronic monitoring. We conclude the association with minors and pornography conditions are unconstitutionally vague or overbroad and will remand the case to the trial court to modify them

First Holding:

Regarding the conditions of probation. we conclude the association with minors and pornography conditions are unconstitutionally vague or overbroad and will remand the case to the trial court to modify them.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

Second Holding:

A probation condition is valid under the statutory scheme if it relates to the crime for which the defendant was convicted, relates to other criminal conduct, or requires or forbids conduct that is reasonably related to future criminality.

Authority:

People v. Hall (2017) 2 Cal.5th 494, 498

People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486

Third Holding:

The Lent test is conjunctive—all three factors must be found in order to invalidate a probation condition.

Authority:

People v. Balestra (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 57, 65, fn. 3

Fourth Holding:

A trial court abuses its discretion only when the probation conditions imposed are arbitrary, capricious, or exceed the bounds of reason.

Authority:

People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 233-234

Fifth Holding:

Even valid probation conditions must not be unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Vagueness considers whether a condition is sufficiently precise to give the probationer fair warning of what conduct is required or prohibited; overbreadth considers the closeness of fit between the state’s interest in reformation and rehabilitation and the burden imposed on the [probationer’s] constitutional rights.

Authority:

People v. Rhinehart (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1123, 1126-1127

In re I.V. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 249, 260

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890

Sixth Holding:

A probation condition must be sufficiently definite for the probationer to know what conduct is required or prohibited, and to allow the court to determine when that condition has been violated.

Authority:

People v. Hall (2017) 2 Cal.5th 494, 500

Seventh Holding:

A probation condition also must be closely tailored to its legitimate objective to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad

Authority:

People v. Patton (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 934, 946

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890

People v. Garcia (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 97, 101-102 [such conditions must be narrowly drawn]

Eighth Holding:

We review de novo constitutional challenges to probation conditions.

Authority:

People v. Mendez (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1172