Purvis

People v. Purvis

Good Law
11 Cal. App. 4th 1193·14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 651·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1462·92 Daily Journal DAR 17065·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10165
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 18, 1992Docket Nos. A055866, A055867California2,437 words

Opinion

Opinion

Benson, J.

Jereld Edwin Purvis (sometimes spelled “Jerald” in the record) was charged with passing a forged check and stealing an automobile. During most of the pendency of the case he was confined on the basis of a parole revocation which rested partly on these same offenses. After he pleaded guilty to these charges, the trial court refused to allow more than one day’s credit for the presentence confinement. Defendant asserts that this was error. We reaffirm our holding in In re Nickles (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 415 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 411 ], review denied, that the defendant bears the burden of showing that the confinement for which he seeks credit would not have occurred but for the misconduct for which he was sentenced. Like the defendant in Nickles , defendant has failed to carry that burden. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Background

In March 1987 defendant was sentenced to 16 months in state prison on convictions of forgery (Pen. Code, § 470) and felony taking of an automobile (Veh. Code, § 10851). Due to successive parole violations he had not yet been discharged from custody as of the date of the instant offenses. However, as of October 24, 1990, he was free on parole.

On…

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.