{"id":203,"date":"2026-03-20T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-03-20T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=203"},"modified":"2026-03-20T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-03-20T12:00:00","slug":"people-v-taft-section-1237-1-trial-court-jurisdiction-custody-credits","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=203","title":{"rendered":"People v. Taft \u2014 Trial court retains jurisdiction under Penal Code section 1237.1 to correct presentence custody credit errors during pending appeal"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
People v. Taft<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
2nd District Court of Appeal<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-03-20<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
B339775<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Presentence custody credit, Penal Code section 1237.1, probation revocation, suspended sentence, trial court jurisdiction, abstract of judgment correction<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Billy Arthur Taft Jr. was charged in Los Angeles County with multiple felonies arising from a 2022 incident in which he attacked his cohabitant, then resisted arrest and injured deputies. He pleaded no contest to a felony count of injuring a cohabitant under Penal Code section 273.5 and a misdemeanor count of resisting an executive officer, and admitted an aggravating factor based on his prior strikes. The trial court imposed but suspended a four-year prison sentence and placed him on four years of probation, awarding 269 days of presentence custody credit.<\/p>\n

Taft violated probation in early 2024 with a new driving under the influence arrest and noncompliance with electronic alcohol monitoring. After a formal probation violation hearing, the court terminated probation and imposed the previously suspended four-year prison sentence, awarding what it calculated as a total of 398 days of presentence custody credit. Taft appealed, arguing he was entitled to two additional days of credit.<\/p>\n

While the appeal was pending, Taft’s appellate counsel notified the trial court of the miscalculation. The trial court agreed that two more days were owed but concluded that, because of the pending appeal, it lacked jurisdiction to correct the credits.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Second District Court of Appeal, Division Seven, modified the judgment to award Taft 400 total days of presentence custody credit (200 days of confinement credit and 200 days of conduct credit) and otherwise affirmed. The court’s published holding addresses the trial court’s jurisdiction during a pending appeal to correct presentence custody credit errors under Penal Code section 1237.1.<\/p>\n

Section 1237.1 generally provides that a defendant cannot appeal a judgment of conviction based on a credit calculation error unless the issue was first raised in the trial court, either at the time of sentencing or, if the error was not discovered until after sentencing, in a motion for correction of the record. The statute also provides that the trial court “retains jurisdiction after a notice of appeal has been filed” to correct such errors.<\/p>\n

Resolving an issue left unclear by prior case law, the court held that this retained jurisdiction extends throughout the pendency of the direct appeal. Once the parties agree there is a credit calculation error, the trial court has authority to correct it during the appeal. Although a recent decision interpreting analogous language in section 1237.2 concerning fines and fees concluded that trial court jurisdiction does not extend beyond the appeal, the court here reaffirmed that section 1237.1’s language permits trial court correction during the appeal as well. Because Taft properly raised the error and the trial court erred by declining jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal exercised its own authority under section 1237.1 to modify the judgment to reflect the correct credit calculation.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n