You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

People v. Smith

Citations: 211 Cal. App. 3d 523; 259 Cal. Rptr. 515; 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 618Docket: C004293

Court: California Court of Appeal; June 13, 1989; California; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this appellate case, the defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine for sale and received a sentence enhancement due to a prior drug-related conviction. The defendant appealed, contesting the enhancement on double jeopardy grounds and challenging the denial of presentence credit for the day of sentencing. The appellate court reviewed the application of Penal Code § 2900.5, which mandates credit for all days in custody, including the day of sentencing. The court found that the trial court erred by not awarding credit for the sentencing day, requiring a modification of the judgment to include this day. Additionally, the court examined the calculation of conduct credits under Penal Code § 4019, concluding that the trial court incorrectly awarded an extra day of conduct credit. The correct calculation, based on the statutory formula, resulted in 104 days of conduct credit rather than 105. The judgment was modified accordingly, and the amended abstract of judgment was to be forwarded to the Department of Corrections. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, affirming the appellate court's decision and clarifying the responsibilities concerning credit allocation for days in custody prior to sentencing.

Legal Issues Addressed

Conduct Credit Calculation under Penal Code § 4019

Application: The court addressed the correct method for calculating conduct credits, determining that rounding up is not permitted.

Reasoning: Rounding up is not permitted under the statutory framework.

Double Jeopardy and Sentence Enhancements

Application: The defendant challenged the imposition of a sentence enhancement for a prior conviction, arguing that it constituted double jeopardy.

Reasoning: Smith appealed, claiming double jeopardy regarding the prior conviction enhancement...

Modification of Judgment for Credit Calculation Errors

Application: The trial court was instructed to amend the judgment to correct errors in the calculation of presentence custody and conduct credits.

Reasoning: The judgment is modified to include an additional day of presentence custody, totaling 211 days, but one day of conduct credit is subtracted, resulting in 104 days.

Presentence Credit under Penal Code § 2900.5

Application: The appellate court clarified that under Penal Code § 2900.5, all days in custody, including the day of sentencing, must be credited to the defendant.

Reasoning: The court acknowledged that under Penal Code § 2900.5, all days of custody should be credited, including the partial day of sentencing.