Libhart

People v. Libhart

Good Law
186 Cal. App. 3d 1015·1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2211·233 Cal. Rptr. 457
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 31, 1986No. A032643California2,463 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

White, J.

In this appeal we hold that a defendant who is in custody at a locked facility pursuant to a civil commitment of fixed duration is not entitled to presentence credit against a prison term where (1) the term

*1017 arises from conduct unrelated to the civil commitment, and (2) the restraints associated with such conduct occur after the civil commitment order.

Defendant Rich C. Libhart appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court of Sonoma County following his plea of nolo contendere to a violation of Penal Code section 289, subdivision (a) (penetration by foreign object). Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying him presentence custody and conduct credit. We reject this contention and affirm the judgment.

Defendant was arrested in Sonoma County on July 8, 1984, for filing a false police report (Pen. Code, § 148.5) and on child molestation charges (Pen. Code, §§ 288, subd. (a), 289, subd. (a)). The former charge stemmed from his complaint that he had been assaulted when actually he had attempted suicide. After six days in custody he was given a supervised own recognizance release (OR) on the false police report charge and the…

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.