Charles Denton Watson, In re
| Decision Date | 03 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 28450 |
| Citation | 64 Cal.App.3d 515,134 Cal.Rptr. 675 |
| Parties | In re Charles Denton WATSON on Habeas Corpus. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Albert D. Silverman, Canoga Park, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for petitioner and respondent.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Jack R. Winkler, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., S. Clark Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward T. Fogel, Jr., and Nancy A. Saggese, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellant.
This is an appeal by D. J. McCarthy, Superintendent of California Men's Colony at San Luis Obispo, from a superior court order granting respoondent Charles Denton Watson's petitio requesting 285 days credit pursuant to Penal Code section 2900.5 for the time he was incarcerated in Texas fighting his extradition to Calilfornia to face trial for what are commonly known as the TATE-LaBIANCA murders.
This is a case of first impression which involves a substantial and significant question of law.
During the nights of August 9, 1969, and August 10, 1969, the TATE-LaBIANCA murders were committed.
On November 30, 1969, Charles Dention Watson (hereinafter Watson) was arrested in Collin County, McKinney, Texas, as part of the California TATE-LaBIANCA murder investigation. The following day the Los Angeles Police Department obtained a warrant for Watson's arrest for murder, a violation of California Penal Code section 187. The sheriff's office in McKinney was informed of this arrest warrant and of the plans for California agents to arrive the same day to secure Watson's return to California. However, Watson did not voluntarily return to California with the agents but fought extradition.
On December 8, 1969, the California Grand Jury returned an indictment against Watson, along with Charles Manson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins and Linda Kasabian, for the murders of Abigail Folger (Count I); Wojiciech Frykowski (Count II); Steven Parent (Count III); Sharon Polanski (Count IV); Thomas Sebring (Count V) on August 9, 1969, and the murders of Leno LaBiance (Count VI) and Rosemary LaBianca (Count VII) on August 10, 1969, in violation of Penal Code section 187 and for conspiracy to commit the murders alleged in Counts I through VII in violation of section 182.5 of the Penal Code. (See fn. 7, infra.) On the same day the superior court in California issued a bench warrant for Watson's arrest.
On December 12, 1969, the Lieutenant Governor of the State of California, then the Acting Governor, demanded that Watson, a fugitive from justice, be delivered to California agents authorized to return him to California to be dealt with according to law.
On January 5, 1970, the extradition hearing was held and the next day Watson's extradition was granted by the Governor of Texas, who issued his warrant commanding Watson's arrest and his delivery to California agents for his ultimate return to California.
On January 14, 1970, Watson sought to invalidate the Governor's extradition order in a habeas corpus proceeding filed in the 59th District Court of Collin County, Texas. Two days later, he (Watson) requested and was granted a 30-day continuance.
On February 16, 1970, the petition was denied in a written opinion and the extradition order upheld by the Texas court. Watson appealed that decision to the Texas State Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin, Texas.
On May 6, 1970, the Texas state appellate court in Austin affirmed the order remanding Watson to custody for extradition and he made a motion for a rehearing.
On June 24, 1970, Watson's motion for rehearing was overruled without a written opinion and he then applied to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, for a writ of habeas corpus.
On July 1, 1970, the order denying the petition was signed and entered and Watson then appealed to the United States District Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
On August 31, 1970, the United States District Court of Appeals (Fifth Circuit), in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the decision of the District Court.
On September 11, 1970, Watson was extradited from the State of Texas to California and placed under arrest. The next day (September 12, 1970) he was brought before the Los Angeles County Superior Court on the bench warrant where he later pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity to the TATE-LaBIANCA murders.
On October 12, 1971, following the guilt phase of the trial (which commenced on August 2, 1971), the jury found Watson guilty of murder in the first degree as to each of the first seven counts (Counts I through VII) and of the conspiracy to commit murder as to Count VIII.
On October 19, 1971, the jury, following the sanity phase of the trial, found Watson sane at the time he committed the murders.
On October 21, 1971, following the penalty phase, the jury fixed the penalty as death as to each of the eight counts.
On November 11, 1971, the trial court denied Watson's motion for a new trial and reduction of charge and sentence and sentenced Watson to death.
On November 15, 1971, Watson filed a notice of appeal.
On February 18, 1972, the California Supreme Court in People v. Anderson (1972) 6 Cal.3d 628, 100 Cal.Rptr. 152, 493 P.2d 880, held the death penalty was unconstitutional as being cruel or unusual punishment (Justice McComb dissenting). 1
On March 4, 1972, Penal Code section 2900.5 (hereinafter section 2900.5), enacted by the California Legislature in 1971, became effective.
Section 2900.5, in pertinent part, provides:
'(a) In all feolony convictions, either by plea or by verdict, when the defendant has been in custody in any city, county, or city and county jail, all daus of custody of the defendant from the date of arrest to the date on which the serving of the sentence imposed commences, . . ., shall be credited upon his sentence, . . .
'(b) For the purposes of this section, credit shall be given only where the custody to be credited is attributable to charges arising from the same criminal act or acts for which the defendant has been convicted.
'(c) This section shall be applicable only to those persons who are delivered into the custody of the Director of Correctons on or after the effective date of this section.' 2
On August 6, 1973, the superior court vacated Watson's death sentence and sentenced him (Emphasis added.)
On May 23, 1974, the California Supreme Court in In re Kapperman (1974) 11 Cal.3d 542, 114 Cal.Rptr. 97, 522 P.2d 657 (Justices Clark and McComb dissenting) held that the Legislature improperly provided in section 2900.5, subdivision (c), that the credit for prior custody was to operate prospectively only from its effective date of March 4, 1972, and held the credit provision was also to be applied retroactively. 3
On October 15, 1974, the California Men's Colony denied Watson's request for presentence jail time credit for the 285 days he was confined in Texas fighting extradition. Watson had relied on section 2900.5 and In re Kapperman, supra, as authority for the credit and the California Men's Colony concluded they did not apply to his situation.
On October 29, 1974, Watson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County requesting 285 days credit for the time he spent in Texas jail which was opposed by appellant.
On January 21, 1976, Watson's petition for 285 days presentence jail time in Texas custody was granted by the superior court.
This appeal followed.
The sole issue on appeal is whether or not section 2900.5 entitles a defendant in a criminal case to credit on a California State Prison sentence for the time he was in custody in another state while fighting extradition to California to face the charges upon which he was ultimately convicted and for which he was sentenced to state prison in California.
Appellant Men's Colony contends the superior court improperly granted Watson credit for the time (285 days) he was in Texas fighting extradition to California arguing that section 2900.5 does not apply because during that period of time Watson was a 'fugitive from justice' and the Legislature did not intend that section 2900.5 benefit fugitives from justice; that the denial of credit would not deprive Watson of any constitutionally guaranteed right; and that Watson by resisting extradition eluded the custody of California, lengthened his stay in another jurisdiction and willfully delayed his trial.
Watson urges he is entitled to the credit for the same reasons the superior court granted his petition for the credit. The superior court reasoned that the granting of the 285 day credit was proper pursuant to section 2900.5 in that Watson's custody in Texas was reasonably attributable to the crime for which he was ultimately convicted in California citing the case of In re Miller (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 1046, 1049, 116 Cal.Rptr. 624, and Watson should not be divested of his presentence credit time for having exercised his constitutionally sanctioned right to challenge his extradition to California.
We summarily reject the superior court's reasoning that Watson would be 'penalized' for exercising his constitutionally sanctioned right to resist extradition. We hold to deny Watson credit for the time he was in custody in Texas fighting extradition to California would not deprive him of any right guaranteed by the United States Constitution. (See Pernell v. Rose (6 Cir. 1973) 486 F.2d 301, cert. denied, 415 U.S. 985, 94 S.Ct. 1581, 39 L.Ed.2d 882.) 4...
To continue reading
Request your trial