Error and/or relief
The court erred in failing to award pretrial credit for time served on several of the counts for which a determinate sentence was imposed. The abstract of judgment must be corrected as it incorrectly describes findings by the jury as enhancements.
First Holding:
We review de novo the application of section 2900.5 to the defendant’s sentence. We first examine the statutory language, giving it a plain and commonsense meaning. If the language is clear, courts must generally follow its plain meaning unless a literal interpretation would result in absurd consequences the Legislature did not intend.
Authority:
People v. Cofer (2026) 20 Cal.5th 1, 12
Second Holding:
Under section 2900.5, defendants who serve time in custody prior to their sentencing “receive credit against their prison terms for all of those days spent in custody prior to sentencing, so long as the presentence custody is attributable to the conduct that led to the conviction.
Section 2900.5(b) states in relevant part, that for the purposes of this section credit shall be given only once for a single period of custody attributable to multiple offenses for which a consecutive sentence is imposed.
That language does no more than clarify that when consecutive terms are imposed for multiple offenses in a single proceeding, only one of the terms shall receive credit for presentence custody. Thus, if sentences are imposed consecutively in a single proceeding, dual credits are expressly prohibited by statute.
Authority:
PEN 2900.5
People v. Duff (2010) 50 Cal.4th 787, 793
People v. Bruner (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1178, 1192, fn. 9
Third Holding:
Section 669(a) provides that whenever a person is committed to prison on a life sentence that is ordered to run consecutive to any determinate term of imprisonment, the determinate term of imprisonment shall be served first.
Authority:
PEN 669(a)
Fourth Holding:
Three separate sentencing schemes governed the defendant’s sentencing. For his conviction for murder (count 1), his indeterminate sentence was dictated by sections 190 and 190.2(a).
For his convictions for rape in concert (count 3) and oral copulation in concert (count 4), his indeterminate sentences were supplied by the One Strike law.
His determinate sentences for counts 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 were governed by sections 1170 and 1170.1. As the determinate sentences must be served first, the credit for time served should have been applied against the total term imposed for all seven of the determinate components of the sentence, and the court erred in failing to award credits against that part of the determinate sentence that applied to three of the counts.
He is entitled to no presentence custody against the remaining indeterminate sentences, as they were imposed consecutively.
Authority:
PEN 190
PEN 190.2
PEN 667.61(c)
PEN 669(a)
PEN 1170.1
PEN 2900.5
In re Vaquera (2024) 15 Cal.5th 706, 724 [The trial court must impose a One Strike sentence when a One Strike allegation is properly pled and proved.]
Fifth Holding:
The abstract of judgment is in error in describing the jury’s true findings under sections 190.2(d) and 667.61 as sentencing “enhancements.” The jury’s true findings pursuant to sections 190.2(d) and 667.61 are penalty provisions that exposed the defendant to greater punishment than would be authorized by a verdict on the underlying offense alone; they were not sentencing enhancements. They should not be so described in the abstract of judgment.
We will direct the trial court to delete the entries under “enhancements” in part 2 of the defendant’s indeterminate abstract of judgment.
(Gary note: The court did not cite authority for its directive that the abstract of judgment be corrected. I have listed several below (beginning with Mitchell) on which the court could have relied.)
Authority:
People v. Boswell (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 55, 60
People v. Acosta (2002) 29 Cal.4th 105, 117
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070
People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855
In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385
People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2