California Appellate Court: Custody Credits Must be Applied to Concurrent Terms in Multiple Open Cases
In a case of importance to California prisoners, the state Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District, held on June 28, 2024, that Penal Code § 2900.5 requires a trial court to apply presentence credits for periods that a defendant has spent in jail toward any and all sentences handed down “concurrently at a single hearing to resolve multiple cases.”
Before the Court was an appeal brought by Christopher Lee Cofer, who entered into a plea bargain on five open criminal cases. Cofer received sentences for four of those that were concurrent with the six-year principal term in the fifth. The trial court awarded 66 days actual custody credit and 66 days conduct credit in one case (Case A); 21 days actual custody credit and 20 days conduct credit in the second case (Case B); 225 days actual custody credit and 224 days conduct credit in the third (Case C); and in each of the last two (Cases D and E), 183 days actual custody credit and 182 days conduct credit. Cofer appealed and moved the trial court under § 1237.1 to correct the presentence credits.
In the trial court and on appeal to the Sixth Appellate District, Cofer pointed out that he was released on bond in Case A on November 10, 2020, and on his own recognizance in Cases B and C between January 12 and 18, 2021. He was arrested on Cases D and E on February 13, 2021. The bond was not technically revoked in Cases A, B or C until August 18, 2021, when he was remanded for a competency evaluation. Upon a September 1, 2021, finding that Cofer was competent to stand trial, the trial court released him on his own recognizance on Cases A and B but ordered him to remain in custody on Cases C, D, and E, pending sentencing—which occurred for all five cases on March 30, 2022.
The Sixth Appellate District noted that § 2900.5(a) requires that custody credit be awarded for all days spent in confinement, and that subsection (b) provides that “credit shall be given only where the custody to be credited is attributable to proceedings related to the same conduct for which the defendant has been convicted.” That same subsection adds that “[c]redit shall be given only once for a single period of custody attributable to multiple offense for which a consecutive sentence is imposed.”
To this confusing wording, the Court noted several interpretations could apply. Most applicable it found was one that allows a defendant to “receive credit for all days of actual custody without regard to contemporaneous ‘on bail’ or ‘own recognizance’ status in any particular case.” In other words, when a defendant is incarcerated before sentencing on multiple charges in multiple cases, and then sentenced simultaneously to concurrent terms in each, he is entitled to equal credits in each case. The Court was quick to add, however, that it did not mean to suggest that a defendant would receive credit for time spent in custody “before the initial arrest in any given case.”
The Court noted also that its ruling conflicted with an earlier and contrary opinion issued in People v. Jacobs, (2013) Cal. Rptr. 3d 739—a ruling with which the Court now said, “We respectfully disagree.” Thus the trial court’s judgment was reversed and the case remanded for recalculation of Cofer’s custody credits. See: People v. Cofer, 322 Cal. Rptr. 3d 891 (2024).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
People v. Cofer
| Cite | 322 Cal. Rptr. 3d 891 (2024) |
|---|---|
| Level | State Court of Appeals |