People v. Luna, Cr. 12893
| Decision Date | 12 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 12893 |
| Citation | 181 Cal.Rptr. 833,130 Cal.App.3d 550 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Augustine R. LUNA, Defendant and Appellant. |
*
On February 12, 1981, defendant was arrested for burglary. At that time he had been a parole absconder since September 10, 1980. On February 13, 1981, a parole hold was placed on him. This parole hold contained charges of five violations, only one of which was the burglary. The others were (1) failure to keep his parole agent notified of his whereabouts, (2) failure to comply with monthly narcotic testing, (3) refusing to correctly identify himself to a police officer and (4) having access to a loaded revolver. He now wants credit under Penal Code section 2900.5 for time in custody prior to sentencing. No way.
Whatever one may think of the rationale of People v. Penner, 111 Cal.App.3d 168, 168 Cal.Rptr. 431 and the majority opinion in People v. Simpson, 120 Cal.App.3d 772, 174 Cal.Rptr. 790, both of which cases allow presentence credit when the parole revocation is based on the newly charged crime, this case is factually distinguishable. It is not controlled by those cases.
Here the defendant was not only on parole at the time of arrest, he was a parole absconder. The revocation of parole was not "attributable to the proceedings related to the same conduct for which the defendant had been convicted." (Pen.Code § 2900.5.) As the trial court properly noted, the defendant had been violated for five reasons, only one of which was the instant burglary charge. Even had the defendant not committed this offense, he was subject to parole revocation. Thus, he had no "liberty" interest which was being protected while he was in custody. He is not entitled to presentence credit.
Judgment affirmed.
* Retired Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Adrian
...credits to an adjudicated parole violator who serves the administratively imposed penalty for the violation. (See People v. Luna (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 550, 181 Cal.Rptr. 833; compare In re Wright (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 68, 70, 189 Cal.Rptr. 843, a pre-Atiles case in which our court suggested......
-
Anderson, In re
...to determine whether the sole reason for the revocation of petitioner's parole was his arrest for assault. (Cf. People v. Luna (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 550, 181 Cal.Rptr. 833.) If there is no conflict as to material facts, this court may rule upon the petition in this action without the necess......
-
People v. Boney
...to presentence credit for time served in federal custody. The reasons why he is not were succinctly explained in People v. Luna (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 550, 181 Cal.Rptr. 833, where the court, responding to an identical contention on similar facts held: "No way." (At p. 551, 181 Cal.Rptr. 833......
-
Wright, In re
...Cal.Rptr. 269.) We respectfully decline to follow People v. Boney (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 744, 186 Cal.Rptr. 511 and People v. Luna (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 550, 181 Cal.Rptr. 833. If a defendant is entitled to credit for time served after his parole has been revoked solely for a new offense, as......