Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a petition challenging a Community Release Board decision requiring a parole period despite substantial presentence custody credits. The petitioner was convicted of second-degree burglary, initially granted probation, which was later revoked following another conviction, leading to a commitment to a narcotic treatment facility and subsequent imprisonment under the Indeterminate Sentencing Law (ISL). The petitioner accrued 2,153 days of presentence custody credit, exceeding his total state prison sentence. Upon release, the board imposed a one-year parole, which the petitioner contested and absconded from. After another arrest and parole revocation, his release date was set, with a discharge date established. Central legal issues revolved around the application of presentence custody credits under Penal Code sections 2900.5 and 1170.2, with the court recognizing the Legislature's intent for uniformity in sentencing. The court concluded that presentence credits must apply to both imprisonment and parole periods, even under ISL, and that the parole conditions should align with those post-1977 offenses. Consequently, the court granted a writ of mandate, directing the Department of Corrections to release the petitioner immediately, invalidating the prior parole period extensions.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Presentence Custody Credits under Penal Code Section 2900.5subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that presentence custody credits must be applied to both the imprisonment and parole portions of a sentence, even under the Indeterminate Sentencing Law.
Reasoning: Section 2900.5 requires presentence custody time to be credited towards any term of imprisonment, which encompasses all terms imposed by the court.
Interpretation of Penal Code Section 1170.2 for ISL Sentencessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the lack of explicit language in section 1170.2 does not preclude the application of presentence credits to reduce parole time for sentences under the Indeterminate Sentencing Law.
Reasoning: However, the Department of Corrections argues that since section 1170.2 lacks similar language, it suggests that presentence credits should not reduce parole time under ISL.
Legislative Intent for Uniformity in Sentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court recognized that the statutory framework, including sections 1170 and 1170.2, reflects the Legislature's intent to create uniformity in sentencing and the application of presentence credits.
Reasoning: Sections 1170 and 1170.2, which pertain to DSL sentences and the recomputation of ISL sentences respectively, are part of a legislative framework aimed at creating uniformity in sentencing.
Parole Conditions under Subdivision (f) of Section 1170.2subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that parole conditions for offenses committed before July 1, 1977, should mirror those for offenses committed after that date, reinforcing the application of presentence credits to parole reduction.
Reasoning: Subdivision (f) of section 1170.2 reinforces that parole conditions for inmates who committed felonies before July 1, 1977, should align with those sentenced for offenses post that date.
Writ of Mandate for Immediate Releasesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court granted a writ of mandate, directing the Department of Corrections to release the petitioner from custody and supervision immediately, as the parole period was unlawfully extended.
Reasoning: The writ is granted, directing the Department of Corrections to immediately release the petitioner from custody and supervision, with any pending parole holds or revocation proceedings stayed.