Blog Jay Leiderman Law

The probation report filed in this case was correct that petitioner was entitled to the actual credits in the amount of 743 days for the days he spent at home under house arrest, wearing an ankle monitor, during his pre-trial confinement.

In People v. Anaya (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 608, the court stated that “Section 1203.016 authorizes a low-risk or minimum security offender committed to a county jail to participate in a home detention program if approved by the county or the court.” (158 Cal.App.4th at 611.)  Petitioner was not ordered confined under that statute.  He was ordered confined pretrial pursuant to an order of the court of appeals that had explicit and extensive confinement and custody instructions.  Anaya has two informative passages on the topic, one is 158 Cal.App.4th at 613 and the other is footnote 4.  The Second District Court of Appeal, Division 6, discusses what is and is not custody for purposes of presentence credit: “Anaya’s argument that her home detention program was as, if not more, restrictive than other types of custody for which credits have been awarded also is without merit. Moreover, the electronic monitoring agreement did not restrict her movements. Except for being at home to make a phone call once a day, Anaya was free to go anywhere in the County at any time[;]” and “The lynchpin for the receipt of custody credits is that one be “in custody.”  Citing People v. Reinertson (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 320, 326, Anaya urges in her petition for rehearing that we have too narrowly defined the term.  Though the term “in custody” has never been precisely defined, it is evident that Anaya was not “in custody” for the purpose of receiving time credit. (People v. Ambrose (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1917, 1921-1922; see People v. Richter (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 575, 579-580 [time spent in work release program in lieu of confinement does not entitle the participant to custody credit].)

credits

Affixing an ankle monitor

Anaya was also sentenced under statutes where probation was eligible and a jail sentence was not mandatory. Because Luster was sentenced under the scheme contemplated in sections 1170 and 667.6, he was subject to mandatory custody time, therefore triggering the provisions of section 2900.5 subds (a) and (f).

The Anaya court affirms the continued validity of People v. Lapaille (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1159 in the wake of the 1999 amendments to section 2900.5. The logic of Lapille, that petitioner was in custody, carries the day, as “custody” and not monitoring is the gravamen herein.  Petitioner was restricted even more than Lapille was.  He was confined to his home with an ankle monitor 24 hours a day, allowed to leave only for pre-arranged medical appointments and for scheduled court dates. Accordingly, he is entitled to credit for his presentence time spent on ankle monitoring.  That credit is to be day-for-day.

Therefore, under the case law of People v. Lapille 15 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1169-1170, he is entitled to credit for those days.[1]

[1] People v. Lapille 15 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1169-1170:  Section 1203.016 provides that defendants on electronic home detention must remain in the interior of their homes during hours designated by the program administrator, admit the administrator to their homes at any hour to verify compliance with the program, wear an electronic monitoring device, be subject to arrest without warrant if there is reasonable cause to believe they have violated program rules, and abide by other rules and regulations imposed by county authorities. However, such defendants may also be permitted to seek and retain employment outside the home, attend psychological counseling sessions and educational or vocational classes, and go to medical and dental appointments.

Based on the limited record before us, we conclude that defendant in this case was subject to restraints at least as confining as those placed on persons in electronic home detention programs, so that his house arrest was just as “custodial.” The trial court ordered defendant to remain at his home, except for visits to his lawyer and court appearances. At some time during his lengthy home confinement, the court gave him permission to leave his home to walk his daughter to and from the school bus. The probation department or release clerk called him to verify that he was complying with his confinement. There is no indication that defendant ever left his home to attend medical or dental appointments, or to participate in any counseling sessions. He was on complete disability due to his heart condition, and thus did not work.

credits

House arrest

Based on the above comparison, we hold that defendant in this case is entitled to custody credits for preconviction custody pursuant to section  2900.5, subdivision (a), as amended in 1991, under the state and federal equal protection clauses. The only real differences between this defendant’s confinement and that of one on electronic home confinement is that one is based at home under O.R. release, and the other on a statutory program; and that one’s location is verified by electronic tracking, while the other’s is based on telephone calls to the residence. These procedural differences are not legitimate bases for treating defendant differently from those placed in electronic home detention programs pursuant to section 1203.016. (E.g., People v. Darnell, supra, 224 Cal.App.3d at p. 809.)

 

twitter Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail

Jay Leiderman Jay Leiderman Law
Fighting the Man for You

Criminal Defense Attorney Jay Leiderman

When searching for the right attorney, it is often the worst time in your life. Finding a good one, and the right one for you, is a daunting task. At Jay Leiderman Law, we have proven results over years of practice, and we are uniquely qualified to represent you in your time of need. Jay Leiderman Law believes that they are the right firm for you for many, many reasons.

The Law Offices of Jay Leiderman looks forward to assisting you in your time of need. We offer FREE consultations to all prospective clients.

Address & Contact Information

Jay Leiderman Law
770 County Square Drive Suite 101
Ventura, California 93003

Tel: (805) 654-0200
Fax: (805) 654-0280


Go Back
 

9 Comments

  • Johnie says:

    Brown V. Board Of Education

    In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back…
    Earl Warren, 1954
    Source: The Supreme Court in American History, 1965

  • “It is my belief that there are ‘absolutes’ in our Bill of Rights,
    and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what the
    words meant and meant their prohibitions to be ‘absolutes.’ ”
    Justice Hugo L. Black
    Source: 1962
    http://liberty-tree.ca/qb/Hugo.Black.Quote.8F10

  • Singapore says:

    “Promised Land” is a song lyric written by Chuck Berry to the melody of “Wabash Cannonball”, … Berry wrote the song while still in prison, and borrowed an atlas from the prison library to plot the itinerary. … The Grateful Dead performed this song live 425 times from July 1971 through the band’s last show in 1995

    https://www.prisonactivist.org/

  • travel says:

    Fix my supper and let me go to
    And let me go to bed, indeed Lord
    Fix my supper and let me go to bed
    Now I’ve been drinking white lightning
    It’s done gone to my head

    The judge he pleaded, the clerk he wrote it
    The clerk he wrote it, down indeed, Lord
    The judge he pleaded, the clerk he wrote it down
    Now I say, if you miss the jail, sinner
    You must be Nashville bound

    Some got six months, some got one solid
    Some got one solid year, indeed Lord
    Some got six months, some got one solid year
    Now well, me an Walter Davis
    We both got a life time here

    Copwatch
    http://www.copwatch.org/

  • Association of Federal Defense Attorneys
    The Association of Federal Defense Attorneys: members have access to a newsletter, research materials, a document library, information about training, and legislative advocacy work. One day pass available for new users. Log-in allows users to contribute to the “Shout Box,” which is viewed by other members who are logged on.
    URL: http://afda.org/

  • price street says:

    https://www.apc.org/en/system/files/PRINT_ISSUE_Cyberseguridad_EN.pdfAug 5, 2013 – uS and china accuse each other of cyber warfare, russia today. 19 February 2009 … html, Jay Leiderman, Justice for the PayPal WikiLeaks pro-.

  • Frank says:

    Howdy! I simply want to offer you a huge
    thumbs up for the great info you have got right here on this post.

    I am returning to your site for more soon.

  • Archie says:

    Hello, just wanted to mention, I enjoyed this blog post. It was practical. Keep on posting!

  • young people says:

    Everything is very open with a really clear explanation of the issues. It was definitely informative. Your website is very useful. Many thanks for sharing!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

 ^