Credits

Presentence credits

PC2900.5

If a defendant gets picked up in other state on a California warrant, the defendant gets credits for the out-of-state custody. (In re Watson (1977) 19 Cal.3d 646.) However, if a defendant gets picked up for reasons other than a California warrant, such as committing an out-of-state crime, then the defendant gets no credit for the time he is in custody due to the out-of-state stuff. (In re Joyner (1989) 48 Cal.3d 487.)

Voluntary stay at residential rehab doesn't count for credits. (People v. Billy (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 246.)

Credits for noncontinuous days

People v. Culp (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1278

People v. Jackson (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 439

People v. Dailey (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1182

Jail Conduct Credits

PC4019 1-for-1 2-for-2

Prison Credits

PC2933

Limitations on Credits

Murder and Sex Offenses

People v. Moon (Cal. Ct. App. - March 29, 2011) People v. Lara (Cal. Supreme Ct. - July 19, 2012)

Violent Offenses

If a defendant is sentenced on one count or one case on a violent case and is sentenced on a non-violent case, the non-violent count or non-violent case is also capped under PC2933.1 (People v. Nunez (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 761

Three Strikes

Pre-sentencing versus post-sentencing

People v. Jones (Feb. 27, 2023, B318732)

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B318732.PDF

Foreign jurisdictions

he court also may sentence the California case concurrently with the foreign judgment. “A defendant ordered to serve concurrent terms by a California state court is entitled to be transferred to the foreign jurisdiction if that foreign jurisdiction will not credit him with time served in California. (In re Stoliker (1957) 49 Cal.2d 75, 78, 315 P.2d 12 [a prisoner is entitled to effectuate concurrent sentencing by filing a writ of habeas corpus to seek transfer of custody to federal authorities].) The appellate courts have interpreted this rule to mean that California has a duty to make a defendant available to the foreign authorities. (In re Riddle (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 707, 708, 49 Cal.Rptr. 919; In re Tomlin (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 668, 669, 50 Cal.Rptr. 805 (Tomlin).) This duty is not a matter of judicial or administrative discretion. Further, no formal court order (apart from a concurrent state sentence) is needed to trigger that duty or to effect that transfer. (Id. at p. 671, 50 Cal.Rptr. 805.) However, California cannot compel the foreign jurisdiction to take the defendant into custody. (Ibid.) ¶ In 1963, the State Legislature amended section 2900 to ‘facilitate and implement concurrency [of sentences].’ (Tomlin, supra, 241 Cal.App.2d at p. 670, 50 Cal.Rptr. 805.) Section 2900, subdivision (b)(2) states, in pertinent part: ‘[If] the judge of the California court orders that the California sentence shall run concurrently with the sentence which such person is already serving, the Director of Corrections shall designate the institution of the other jurisdiction as the place for reception of such person within the meaning of the preceding provisions of this section.’” (People v. Antonio, 10 Cal. App. 5th 1064, 1068, 216 Cal. Rptr. 3d 523 (4th Dist. 2017); emphasis in original.) It is not the duty of the court to order action to be taken by the Director of Corrections. If the director refuses to carry out the statutory duty imposed by section 2900, the defendant should seek administrative relief. (Id., a tp. 1069.)