Court Opinion

ID: 9727893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:52:20.379076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:44.198186
License: Public Domain

STEPHENS, J., Dissenting.
This is a very simple case. Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of robbery and one count of burglary in case No. A-017430. He was sentenced to the state prison, suspended, placed on probation conditional that he spend one year in the county jail. Back time credit of 160 days was mandated by section 2900.5 of the Penal Code.
The pleas in case No. A-017430 constituted a violation of probation in case No. A-438396. Sentence on this violation was for one year in the county jail as a condition of continuing that probation. This year jail time was to run consecutively to the year jail term imposed in case No. A-017430. Defendant had previously been incarcerated, as a condition of the original grant of probation, in case No. A-438396, one year in the county jail.
Section 19a of the Penal Code provides a maximum term of one year in a county jail “as a condition of probation upon a conviction of either a felony or a misdemeanor . . . [for a single offense].” (See also People v. Brasley (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 311 [115 Cal.Rptr. 910].) Likewise, under section 1203.1 of the Penal Code, as a condition of probation, the judge may imprison a defendant in a county jail for not more than “the maximum time fixed by laws.” Section 1203.1 and section 19a, when read together, allow the imposition of only one year (total time) in the county jail on one count as a condition of probation.
*740Defendant had, at the time probation was reinstated as to case No. A-438396, already served the maximum term permitted by law in the county jail.
As to case No. A-017430, defendant has presently served in excess of the term of incarceration and should be released.
As to case No. A-438396, the condition of the additional year in the county jail, while technically a legal “sentence,” was ineffective to impose additional incarceration time. Section 2900.5 of the Penal Code provides:
“(a) In all felony and misdemeanor convictions, . . . when the defendant has been in custody, ... all days of custody of the defendant, including days served as a condition of probation in compliance with a court order, shall be credited upon his sentence, ... If the total number of days in custody exceeds the. number of days of the sentence to be imposed, the entire sentence shall be deemed to have been served.
“(b)...................
“(c) For purposes of this section, ‘sentence’ includes any fine or period of imprisonment imposed as a condition of probation .... The credits provided by this section shall not be considered in establishing or fixing any condition of probation, . . . ; but such credits shall be applied to any such condition of probation, ... no later than one week after it has been established or fixed.”
Therefore, the “sentence” (the condition of the one-year jail term) was legal. The judge was prohibited from considering any time previously served as it related to that case. The jail time previously served equalled or exceeded the imposition of conditioned incarceration, and, hence, that condition was deemed complied with.1
There being no jail time to be served in case No. A-438396, defendant is entitled to be released in that case.
*741In sum, the defendant is now, and for some time past has been, entitled to his release from custody in cases numbered A-017430 and A-438396. The cases should be remanded to the trial court for appropriate disposition in accordance with the views herein expressed.2
On March 8, 1978, the opinion was modified to read as printed above.

 Where a defendant has begun serving the sentence, the court has no jurisdiction to vacate or modify it unless it was improper on its face. (In re Wimbs (1966) 65 Cal.2d 490, 498 [55 Cal.Rptr. 22, 421 P.2d 70]; People v. McAllister (1940) 15 Cal.2d 519. 526 [102 P.2d 1072]; People v. Getty (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 101, 107 [123 Cal.Rptr. 704].)

The fact that the judge intended to impose sentences which together would incarcerate defendant for two years is conceded. He could have accomplished that by requiring one year on the robbery and one year on the burglary to run consecutively (case No. A-017430) and then extend the probationary term on case No. A-438396. The judicial error contained within a legal sentence cannot be altered after commitment.