52 California opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2026 18 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Faresgreen2 sentences2016(In re Watson (1977) 19 Cal.3d 646, 650-651 .) But neither the Attorney General nor defendant address section 1237.1, which provides: “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.” (See People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4 2015Section 1237.1 provides: “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.” In People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954 (Fares), the court stated that “[i]f a dispute arises as to the correct calculation of credit days, such should be presented on noticed motion” t | 4 | 7 |
People v. Acostagreen2 sentences2022(People v. Acosta (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 411, 428 ; People v. Duran (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 267, 270 .) Accordingly, we order a modification of the judgment to reflect that Majerus has 143 days 7 Section 1237.1 provides that “[n]o 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 2022“Section 1237.1 provides: ‘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.’ The statute ‘does not require defense counsel to file [a] motion to correct a presentence award of credits in order to raise that question on appeal when other issues are litigated on appea | 3 | 13 |
People v. Buckhaltergreen2 sentences2026(People v. Bravo (2025) 107 Cal.App.5th 1144 , 1157.) “We assume the trial court was aware of and followed applicable law.” (People v. Coleman (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 709 , 724.) Custody Credits When a defendant is resentenced, “the sentencing court must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time the defendant has already served, whether in jail or prison, and whether before or since he was originally committed and delivered to prison custody.” (People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29 , italics omitted.) However, “[n]o appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a 2024If a defendant is imprisoned and later resentenced, “the sentencing court must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time the defendant has 3 already served, whether in jail or prison, and whether before or since he was originally committed and delivered to prison custody.” (People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29, 37 (Buckhalter).) However, under section 1237.1, “[n]o 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 t | 2 | 4 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2016The 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.” An appellate court may resolve presentence credit calculation issues in the first instance if doing so will serve the interests of judicial economy (People v. Jones (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 485, 493 ), but the appellant has the burden to affirmatively demonstrate his entitlement to credit for any particular time period. 2014Section 1237.1 provides: “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.” It has been held that section 1237.1 “does not require defense counsel to file [a] motion to correct a presentence award of credits in order to raise that question on appeal when other issue | 2 | 4 |
People v. Delgadogreen2 sentences2022“Section 1237.1 provides: ‘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.’ The statute ‘does not require defense counsel to file [a] motion to correct a presentence award of credits in order to raise that question on appeal when other issues are litigated on appea 2015Section 1237.1 states: “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.” (Italics added.) Here, while appellant filed the requisite motion for correction of the record in the trial court (People v. Delgado (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 761, 764 ), he waited over 30 years | 1 | 10 |
People v. Alexandergreen2 sentences2022(People v. Alexander (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 798, 801 [dismissal is proper disposition when only claim of error on appeal involves restitution fine amount and issue was not raised in trial court].) DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed. 2020Section 1237.2 provides: “An appeal may not be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction on the ground 1 Menjivar agreed to pay $300 in actual victim restitution and waived his right to a hearing. 2 References to statutes are to the Penal Code. 2 of an error in the imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs 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 in the trial court, which may be made i | 1 | 3 |
People v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2015(People v. Acosta (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 411, 427 ; accord, People v. Jones (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 485, 493 .) Moreover, "[a] sentence that fails to award legally mandated custody credit is unauthorized and may be corrected whenever discovered." (People v. Taylor (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 628, 647 ; see People v. Chilelli (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 581, 591 .) The record reflects that the 521 days of credit awarded to appellant in the 2010 case exceeded the 365-day jail term in that case by 156 days. 2014Defendant appealed.3 DISCUSSION Defendant argues the initial sentencing court did not impose a consecutive sentence for his misdemeanor gang crime conviction in case No. SS120728B.4 Therefore, he claims his sentence for the misdemeanor gang crime should have run 3 Section 1237.1 provides that “[n]o 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 | 1 | 2 |
People v. Connorgreen2 sentences2014(People v. Mazurette, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 792 ; People v. Delgado, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 764 ; People v. Connor, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 677 .) Section 1237.1 states: “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.” The language “error in the calcu 2012“There is no constitutional right of appeal from a judgment or order in criminal cases; rather the right of appeal is statutory. [Citations.]” (People v. Connor (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 669, 677 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 521 ].) Section 1237, subdivision (a) permits a defendant to appeal “[f]rom a final judgment of conviction except as provided in Section 1237.1 . . . .” Section 1237.1 provides: “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 cour | 1 | 2 |
People v. Verbagreen2 sentences2014He cites People v. Delgado (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 761 and People v. Verba (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 991 in support of his argument. 2013(See People v. Verba (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 991, 994 (Verba) [rejecting assertion that section 1237.1 barred defendant’s claim that under equal protection principles he was entitled to application of October 2011 amendment of section 4019].) As explained recently by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in rejecting the Attorney General’s 5 contention that section 1237.1 barred the defendant’s claim that a different version of section 4019 applied in determining the custody credits to which he was entitled: “[A]n error in ‘doing the math’ . . . constitutes the type of minor sentencing error at wh | 1 | 2 |
In Re Ballardgreen1 sentence2020He asserts that these 690 days are excess custody credits that apply to reduce both his parole period and the fines imposed at sentencing. (§ 2900.5, subd. (a) [application of excess credits against fines]; In re Ballard (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 647, 650 [section 2900.5 credits may apply against period of incarceration as well as parole period].) Section 1237.1 provides: “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 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Castellanogreen1 sentence2020Defendant asserts the order imposing the fine and fees 3 Appellate counsel’s postjudgment letter to the superior court was required to perfect appellate review and comply with section 1237.2, which states that “[a]n appeal may not be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction on the ground of an error in the imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs 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 correct | 1 | 1 |
People v. Chilelligreen1 sentence2015(People v. Acosta (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 411, 427 ; accord, People v. Jones (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 485, 493 .) Moreover, "[a] sentence that fails to award legally mandated custody credit is unauthorized and may be corrected whenever discovered." (People v. Taylor (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 628, 647 ; see People v. Chilelli (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 581, 591 .) The record reflects that the 521 days of credit awarded to appellant in the 2010 case exceeded the 365-day jail term in that case by 156 days. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hall
green
2 sentences2021Defendant’s motion was required to perfect appellate review and comply with section 1237.2, which states that “ ‘[a]n appeal may not be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction on the ground of an error in the imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs 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 in the trial court, which may be made informally in writing….’ ” (People v. Torres (2020) 44 C 2021(Hall, supra, 39 Cal.App.5th at p. 504 .) 3 Section 1237.2 states: “An appeal may not be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction on the ground of an error in the imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs 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 in the trial court, which may be made informally in writing. | 5 | 2020–2024 |
People v. Dueñas
green
2 sentences2020After appellant’s sentencing, appellant’s counsel submitted a letter to the court on appellant’s behalf pursuant to section 1237.22 requesting the court to reduce the fines and 2 Section 1237.2 reads in pertinent part: “An appeal may not be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction on the ground of an error in the imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs 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 2020After appellant’s sentencing, appellant’s counsel submitted a letter to the court on appellant’s behalf pursuant to section 1237.22 requesting the court to reduce the fines and 2 Section 1237.2 reads in pertinent part: “An appeal may not be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction on the ground of an error in the imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs 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 | 3 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Ellis
green
2 sentences2021(Aviles, supra, 39 Cal.App.5th at p. 1076 ; People v. Ellis (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 1090, 1094 ; People v. Douglas (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1397 .) Defendant argues his circumstances have dramatically changed since he was arrested and convicted in this case, and it is uncertain whether he will be able to obtain the same employment upon his release from prison, or if will be able to obtain a prison job. 2020Ellis (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 1090, 1094 .) There is nothing in the record to show that defendant would be unable to satisfy the fine and fees imposed by the court while serving his prison term, even if he fails to obtain a prison job. | 2 | 2020–2021 |
People v. CLAVEL
green
2 sentences2015(Id. at p. 958.) In People v. Clavel (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 516 (Clavel), the court, relying on Fares, concluded that a letter motion was inadequate to preserve the issue of presentence custody credit on appeal. 2013(People v. Clavel (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 516, 518-519 .) 2 The trial court imposed a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), stayed a parole revocation fine of like amount (§1202.45), $120 in court security fees (§1465.8) and a $30 criminal conviction fee for each count (Gov. | 2 | 2013–2015 |
People v. Funches
green
1 sentence2022(People v. Acosta (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 411, 428 ; People v. Duran (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 267, 270 .) Accordingly, we order a modification of the judgment to reflect that Majerus has 143 days 7 Section 1237.1 provides that “[n]o 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 | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Kennedy
green
1 sentence2022We accept respondent’s concession. “[A]lthough appellant signed a general waiver of his right to appeal, he is not barred from challenging an alleged misapplication of conduct credits on appeal where, as here, the plea agreement and waiver of appellate rights made no mention of conduct credits.” (People v. Kennedy (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 385, 391 .) Appellant also contends his claims are not barred by section 1237.1, which states, in pertinent part: “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 credit | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Douglas
green
1 sentence2021(Aviles, supra, 39 Cal.App.5th at p. 1076 ; People v. Ellis (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 1090, 1094 ; People v. Douglas (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1397 .) Defendant argues his circumstances have dramatically changed since he was arrested and convicted in this case, and it is uncertain whether he will be able to obtain the same employment upon his release from prison, or if will be able to obtain a prison job. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Frandsen
green
1 sentence2021(Cf. People v. Frandsen (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1126 , 1153–1154.) 4 Defendant’s postjudgment letter to the superior court was required to perfect appellate review of his Dueñas contentions pursuant to section 1237.2, which states that “[a]n appeal may not be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction on the ground of an error in the imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs 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 ma | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Avila
green
1 sentence2020(See People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589 , 596–597; People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 227 ; People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 729 .) In Dueñas, the misdemeanant disputed her ability to pay either a restitution fine or court fees, requested an ability-to- assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs 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 in the trial court, which may be made informally in writing . . . .” We grant Palaita’s | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Nelson
green
1 sentence2020(See People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589 , 596–597; People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 227 ; People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 729 .) In Dueñas, the misdemeanant disputed her ability to pay either a restitution fine or court fees, requested an ability-to- assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs 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 in the trial court, which may be made informally in writing . . . .” We grant Palaita’s | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. McCullough
green
1 sentence2020(See People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589 , 596–597; People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 227 ; People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 729 .) In Dueñas, the misdemeanant disputed her ability to pay either a restitution fine or court fees, requested an ability-to- assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs 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 in the trial court, which may be made informally in writing . . . .” We grant Palaita’s | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Jordan
green
1 sentence2020(People v. Jordan (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1136, 1142 .) Dismissal of the appeal is required where a defendant does not make a motion to correct an award of presentence custody credits in the trial court. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Kopp
green
1 sentence2020(See People v. Kopp (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 47 , 94–98, review granted Nov. 13, 2019, S257844.) 4 Defendant’s request to the superior court was required to perfect appellate review and comply with section 1237.2, which states that “[a]n appeal may not be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction on the ground of an error in the imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs 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 | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. St. Martin
green
1 sentence2016Martin (1970) 1 Cal.3d 524 , 537– 538 [“ordinarily matters not presented to the trial court and hence not a proper part of the record on appeal will not be considered on appeal”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C) [appellant’s opening brief must “[p]rovide a summary of significant facts 4 Section 1237.1 provides, “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 un | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Watson
green
1 sentence2016(In re Watson (1977) 19 Cal.3d 646, 650-651 .) But neither the Attorney General nor defendant address section 1237.1, which provides: “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.” (See People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Sullivan
green
1 sentence2016As of August 31, 2016, no writ has been filed. 3 limited to matters in the record”].) Kilgore does not raise any other claim of error, and he apparently would have no complaint if he is credited 1152 days total custody credit as provided in the abstract of judgment.6 “ ‘Perhaps the most fundamental rule of appellate law is that the judgment challenged on appeal is presumed correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error.’ [Citation.] ‘ “We must indulge in every presumption to uphold a judgment, and it is [the appellant’s] burden on appeal to affirmatively demonstra | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Marquez
green
1 sentence2015Code, § 1237.1.) 5 once for a single period of custody attributable to multiple offenses for which a consecutive sentence is imposed.” As our Supreme Court has noted, however, “ ‘in what is surely an understatement, “[c]redit determination is not a simple matter.” ’ [Citation.]” (In re Marquez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 14, 19 .) Application of section 2900.5 “ ‘is clear when the conduct that led to the conviction and sentence was the sole cause of the custody to be credited. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Serrato green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Antwon R. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Mesa green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Fosselman
green
1 sentence2014Defendant appealed.3 DISCUSSION Defendant argues the initial sentencing court did not impose a consecutive sentence for his misdemeanor gang crime conviction in case No. SS120728B.4 Therefore, he claims his sentence for the misdemeanor gang crime should have run 3 Section 1237.1 provides that “[n]o 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 | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Mazurette green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Joseph B. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.