Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Monterrosa

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 20, 1987No. H002199Published

1Dissent

AGLIANO, P. J.,

Dissenting. — I would affirm. The trial court correctly decided that once the determinate sentence has been served, the unused presentence credits are to be applied, in this case, to the ensuing period of imprisonment ordered upon revocation of petitioner’s parole. While Penal Code section 2900.5, subdivision (c) is not a model of clarity, it sufficiently dictates that the unused credits be applied to such period of imprisonment.

Subdivision (c) defines the “term of imprisonment” to which presentence credits are to be applied as including “any period of imprisonment prior to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Weber v. County of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  2. People v. EsparzaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API