People v. Lewis CA1/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 3, 2025A169213California3,248 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fujisaki, J.

DISCUSSION

Defendant raises several contentions: (1) the trial court erroneously denied conduct credit for the time defendant spent in custody at juvenile hall;

2 (2) the trial court improperly imposed the $10,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) without affording him the opportunity to establish his inability to pay the fine; and (3) defendant’s trial counsel provided ineffective assistance to the extent she should and could have done more to advance his inability- to-pay claim. We address these issues in turn. A. Conduct Credit Defendant was initially charged as a juvenile but his case was transferred to adult court. Though the trial court granted defendant custody credit for 2,090 days attributable to the time he spent in both juvenile custody and adult custody, it granted 228 days of conduct credit attributable only to his time in adult custody. On appeal, the People agree with defendant that he is entitled to conduct credits for the time he was confined at juvenile hall. So do we. (People v. Twine (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 59, 63 [“a defendant sentenced to state prison is entitled to conduct credits for a period of presentence detention in a juvenile detention…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.