California Codes
Cal. Penal Code § 1237.1 (2026)
Appeals, When Allowed and How Taken, and the Effect Thereof
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction on the ground of an error in the calculation of presentence custody credits, unless the defendant first presents the claim in the trial court at the time of sentencing, or if the error is not discovered until after sentencing, the defendant first makes a motion for correction of the record in the trial court, which may be made informally in writing. The trial court retains jurisdiction after a notice of appeal has been filed to correct any error in the calculation of presentence custody credits upon the defendant’s request for correction.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1960–2026 · leading case: Uriel Gonzalez v. Stuart Sherman, 873 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2017).
Uriel Gonzalez v. Stuart Sherman, 873 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2017). “On April 10, 2013, Gonzalez filed a motion for correction of the record in the California Superior Court pursuant to California Penal Code section 1237.1, contending that he was entitled to 482 days in time served credits and 72 days in good time credits for a total of 554 days…”
People v. Antwon R., 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 473 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “II Penal Code Section 1237.1 Does Not Apply to Juvenile Appeals The minor’s principal point is that the juvenile court erred by failing to calculate his precommitment custody credit.”
People v. Patel, 196 Cal. App. 4th 956 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). “2d 314 ] for resolution of issues involving conduct credits, later given legislative endorsement (Pen. Code, § 1237.1), which concluded that it is proper to require an initial resort to the trial court before permitting an appeal if an effective remedy is available there.”
People v. Jones, 82 Cal. App. 4th 485 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). “(Pen. Code, § 1237.1.) However, if—as here—there are other appellate issues to be decided, the appellate court may simply resolve the custody credits issue in the interests of economy.”
People v. House, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1049 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). “) Penal Code section 1237.1 requires a request for correction of such credits to be directed first to the trial court.”
People v. Franklin, 261 Cal. App. 2d 703 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968). “1 Penal Code section 1237.1. 2 An exhibit was introduced establishing that the application deadline in Illinois was in fact February 15, 1966.”
People v. Baca, 184 Cal. App. 2d 693 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960). “Jacqueline has appealed from the order granting probation (Pen. Code, § 1237.1) and the order denying her motion for a new trial.”
In Re D.B. ca1/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). “(Pen. Code, § 1237.1.)4 However, as appellant points out, Penal Code section 1237.”
People v. Schumacher CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “High (2004) 2 Defendant’s opening brief states, in a footnote, as follows: “On November 23, 2015, the Butte County Superior Court responded to [defendant’s] Penal Code section 1237.1 letter with a document entitled ‘Response to Communication’.”
People v. Henderson CA5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). “(Pen. Code, § 1237.1;6 People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.”
People v. Odisho CA4/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025). “(Pen. Code, § 1237.1 [a claim for additional presentence credits must be tendered to the trial court in the first instance].”
People v. Sanchez CA2/6 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020). “(Pen. Code, § 1237.1.)1 This appeal concerns a single issue – whether Sanchez received the correct number of presentence custody credits.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.