Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellant, a convicted felon, challenged the sentencing decision regarding credit for presentence custody following his guilty plea for possession of a concealable firearm. The appellant was initially arrested and released for the firearm offense but later failed to appear in court. He was subsequently arrested in Alameda County for forgery, during which time holds were placed on him by San Diego law enforcement. After serving time for forgery, he returned to San Diego, where he pled guilty to the firearm charge. The legal issue centered on whether the appellant was entitled to credit for custody time in Alameda County due to holds from San Diego. Under Penal Code section 2900.5, credit is granted for custody attributable to the conduct for which the defendant is convicted. The court found that the appellant's custody in Alameda County related solely to the forgery and not the firearm charges, similar to the precedent set in *In re Miller*. Consequently, the court denied additional credit for the time spent in Alameda County, modifying the judgment to credit only specific days directly related to the San Diego charges. The petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied, affirming the limited credit for time served.
Legal Issues Addressed
Credit for Presentence Custody under Penal Code Section 2900.5subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied this principle to determine that Ewing's custody in Alameda County was not attributable to the San Diego firearm charges, thus denying him additional credit for that time.
Reasoning: Penal Code section 2900.5 stipulates that credit is granted for custody time attributable to proceedings related to the conduct for which the defendant was convicted.
Custodial Holds and Time Creditsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the San Diego hold did not impact Ewing's custodial status in Alameda County, similar to the federal detainer in *In re Miller*.
Reasoning: The hold on Ewing did not influence his custodial status in Alameda County, as no San Diego proceedings concerning the firearms charges occurred until he was returned to San Diego.
Modification of Sentence Creditsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The judgment was modified to grant credit for specific days related to the San Diego charges, affirming that only time directly connected to the relevant proceedings warranted credit.
Reasoning: The court affirms that credit must be given for specific days: two days post-arrest (February 20 and 21, 1976) and three days during transfer to San Diego County jail (February 4, 5, and 6, 1977).