In re Davis

The California Youth Authority appeals from a habeas corpus order directing that previously fixed parole consideration hearing dates, formerly referred to as “a continuance date,” be advanced by the time the respondents had been subject to precommitment detention prior to their commitment to the Youth Authority.

The only contention presented is whether the parole consideration date is in fact a parole release date for which confinement credit must be applied pursuant to Penal Code section 2900.5.

*921 Prior to disposing of the primary issue presented, we reject respondents’ suggestion that our review of the ruling is limited to a determination of whether there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s order. That order was predicated upon an interpretation of sections 30 and 31 of the California Yoúth Authority Board Policy Manual. Inasmuch as an interpretation of a regulation or statute is involved, the question is one of law, not fact. We are not limited as respondents argue by the trial court’s conclusion. (See Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 17 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 607 , 357 P.2d 839 ]; County of Madera v. Superior Court (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 665,…