Court Opinion

ID: 9719256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:46:42.045138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:05.506975
License: Public Domain

POTTER, J. —
I dissent.
Though Penal Code section 2900.5 does not necessarily contemplate that custody be solely or exclusively attributable to proceedings relating to the same conduct for which conviction results, it does not authorize presentence credit where the pending proceedings have no effect whatever upon a defendant’s freedom. In view of the fact that petitioner had been sentenced by a federal court, the superior court had no power to release him from custody. The assumption that he would have been denied bail anyway is, therefore, both gratuitous and irrelevant.
The federal custody was, moreover, totally unrelated to the existence of the state charges. In this respect, the case at bench is different from In re Bentley (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 988, 992 [118 Cal.Rptr. 452], upon which the majority relies. In Bentley, the pending proceedings were the basis of the petitioner being “held in local custody on suspicion of violation of parole” by virtue of the pending charge. The pending charge was, therefore, one of the bases of his custody, whereas in the instant case the state proceedings had no bearing whatever on petitioner’s custodial status.
The most that can be said is that the place of petitioner’s detention was affected. However, as our Supreme Court has said in In re Watson (1977) 19 Cal.3d 646, 651 [139 Cal.Rptr. 609, 566 P.2d 243], “where or under what conditions the defendant has been deprived of his liberty” is not relevant.
Penal Code section 669 expressly grants the trial court the power in its discretion to impose a subsequent sentence to be served consecutive to a sentence already imposed for another crime. If presentence credit must be given under the circumstances of this case, all such subsequent *329sentences must be concurrent to the extent of the presentence custody. Nothing in Penal Code section 2900.5 suggests any such limitation on the court’s power.
The mandate of Penal Code section 2900.5 is that presentence credit be granted “only where the custody to be credited is attributable to proceedings related to the same conduct for which the defendant has been convicted.” (Italics added.) The trial court properly denied such credit.
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied July 20, 1978.