McGarry

People v. McGarry

Good Law
117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 475·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 2197·2002 Daily Journal DAR 2395·96 Cal. App. 4th 644·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1968
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 28, 2002C037114California2,560 words

Opinion

Opinion

Robie, J.

This case addresses the issue of how to allocate the monetary credit resulting from excess presentence custody credit to a base fine, penalty assessments and a restitution fine. We conclude that the monetary credit must be applied “on a proportional basis” (Pen. Code, § 2900.5, subd. (a) (hereafter section 2900.5(a)). In other words, each dollar of monetary credit must be used proportionally to reduce the base fine, penalty assessments and restitution fine rather than any one of these categories alone. Thus, if the monetary credit does not eliminate all amounts due, the defendant still owes the remaining amount in each category.

Here, the trial court erred by applying the monetary credit first to the base fine (in its view, fully satisfying the base fine), applying the rest of the monetary credit to the penalty assessments (in its view, partially satisfying the penalty assessments), and not applying any monetary credit to the restitution fine. However, defendant Daniel Lawrence McGarry still owes the proportional amounts of the base fine, penalty assessments and restitution fine (totaling $2,180) not satisfied by the monetary credit. The trial court also erred by not…

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.