Opinion ID: 2581100
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Conduct credits

Text: With respect to the sentence on his noncapital offenses, defendant was awarded credit for 7,237 actual days in custody. The defense requested the trial court award an additional 3,618 days of conduct credit (see § 4019) on the theory that because the prior judgment had been reversed, the court should consider the proceeding as an initial sentencing and treat defendant as if he had not been previously convicted and sentenced. The court declined and reserved the calculation of conduct credits for the Department of Corrections. We recently rejected the argument that a defendant is entitled to additional days of credit in these circumstances in In re Martinez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 29, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 921, 65 P.3d 411. (See People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 40, fn. 10, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 625, 25 P.3d 1103.) There, the court concluded that for a defendant whose conviction is reversed on appeal, prereversal prison time ought not be viewed as presentence custody, and ... credit accrual should be calculated in accordance with [the defendant's] ultimate postsentence status. ( Martinez, at p. 31, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 921, 65 P.3d 411.) Even though reversal sets the entire matter at large (cf. § 1180), the statutory scheme awards conduct credits based on the defendant's custodial status. Section 4019, subdivision (a)(4) authorizes credits only for confinement in a county jail ... following arrest and prior to the imposition of sentence for a felony conviction, not for postsentence confinement in state prison. [T]he pre- and postsentence credit systems serve disparate goals and target persons who are not similarly situated. The presentence credit scheme, section 4019, focuses primarily on encouraging minimal cooperation and good behavior by persons temporarily detained in local custody before they are convicted, sentenced, and committed on felony charges. By contrast, the worktime credit scheme for persons serving prison terms emphasizes penological considerations, including the extent to which certain classes of prisoners, but not others, deserve or might benefit from incentives to shorten their terms through participation in rehabilitative work, education, and training programs.... ( Buckhalter, at p. 36, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 625, 25 P.3d 1103; see Martinez, at p. 36, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 921, 65 P.3d 411.) Accordingly, the trial court did not err in rejecting defendant's calculation of his custody credits.