defendant in pretrial custody while also subject to parole hold
How later courts described this case
- defendant in pretrial custody while also subject to parole hold
- disapproved of by In re Joyner, 48 Cal.3d 487, 256 Cal.Rptr. 785, 769 P.2d 967
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled by People v. Bruner, 9 Cal. 4th 1178 (1995)
33 Cal.3d 805, 810 (Atiles), overruled in Bruner, supra,
Disapproved by In Re Joyner, 48 Cal. 3d 487 (1989)
Joyner disapproved the Atiles
The opinion
MOSK, J.—I dissent.
Penal Code section 2900.5 requires credit be given a defendant for time spent in custody prior to the commencement of his sentence. The legislative intent was to eliminate the inequality suffered by indigent defendants who serve a period of confinement longer than others because of their inability to post pretrial bail. I doubt that the Legislature intended to bestow a special benefit on recidivists.
If this defendant were confined solely by virtue of the 1979 robbery charge to which he ultimately pleaded guilty, he would be entitled to presentence confinement credit. But he was held not only on that charge, but also as a parole violator. He had been convicted of robbery in December 1976, was sent to state prison in January 1977, and was released on parole on February 28, 1979.
It did not take defendant long to violate his parole. Less than three months later—on May 3—a parole hold was placed on him after new robbery and sodomy charges were filed. Following two revocation hearings his parole was revoked.
The majority assume that defendant’s parole was revoked because of his second robbery conviction. While the conduct implicit in the robbery and sodomy may have triggered the parole officer’s renewed interest in defendant, that was not the reason assigned for revocation. At both hearings, on May 25 and August 29, it was found that defendant had violated the parole condition that he totally abstain from the use of alcoholic beverages. No reference was made to the second robbery.
As the Court of Appeal properly reasoned in this matter: “To allow credit on the current term for the incarceration for parole violation on a former offense would not only afford petitioner double credit but would negate the imposition of any sentence for parole violation and render such provisions meaningless.”
*815 I would deny the petition in its entirety.
Bird, C. J., and Richardson, J., concurred.