P. v. Baze
After his probation was revoked for the fourth time, appellant Steven Richard Baze was ordered to serve his previously suspended sentence of four years in state prison. In this appeal, Baze seeks additional time credit for (1) time he spent at an inpatient treatment program, and (2) conduct credit for time he spent in county jail, based on the more generous accrual rate of former Penal Code section 2933, which was the statute in effect at the time his sentence was executed.[1]
The People concede that the trial court erred in determining that Baze was categorically ineligible for custody credit for the time he spent in the inpatient treatment program, but assert the matter must be remanded to the trial court to determine whether the program was sufficiently restrictive to be considered custodial.
We remand the matter to the trial court to determine whether Baze was “in custody†during the period he was subject to a probation officer’s directive ordering him to participate in the inpatient treatment program. (§ 2900.5, subd. (a).) We conclude, however, that Baze is not entitled to additional conduct credit. The trial court correctly calculated his conduct credit pursuant to former section 4019, the statute in effect at the time he was in presentence custody in 2009.
Comments on P. v. Baze