P v. Raygoza (2nd Dist., Div.4) Defendant on Electronic Home Confinement as a Condition of Bail Entitled to Custody Credits

Mr. Raygoza was in jail pending trial.  His bail was 455K.  A bail bondsman told Raygoza that based upon his financials, the largest bond for which he qualified was 350K.  At a bail hearing, the trial court told Raygoza that it would reduce Raygoza's bail to 350K if Raygoza agreed to participate in the probation department's "home confinement" program.  Raygoza agreed.

He signed a contract with the county whereby he agreed to wear an electronic anklet, stay inside his house except for work and court, not have any booze or weapons in the house, waive his right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and acknowledged that violating the terms could expose him to an additional charge of escape pursuant to PC 4532.  Raygoza donned the anklet and obeyed the rules.

Eventually Raygoza took a plea deal.  At his sentencing, he argued that he should get presentence custody credits for all the days he served on home confinement under PC 2900.5.  The trial court disagreed and ruled accordingly.  Raygoza appealed.

The Second District reverses.

Section 2900.5 states that defendants shall receive presentence credits for "days served in home detention pursuant to 1203.016 or 1203.18".  Section 1203.018 confers to California counties the authority to create a home detention program "in lieu of bail".  It is undisputed that the program under which Raygoza was confined within his home was established under the authority of 1203.018 and that the conditions of confinement met the statutory requirements.  The State argues that because Raygoza's home detention was a "bail condition" it was not "in lieu of bail".  "Nonsense" says the panel.  Raygoza's home detention was in lieu of the 105K bail (in excess of 350K) that he was unable to post.

The panel expands on this truism, pointing out that prior cases focused on the custodial "nature" of the confinement rather than the procedure by which the defendant finds himself confined.  Here, the fact that the trial court judge ordered Raygoza's home confinement rather than the probation department's custodial officer is of no import.

Such blind pursuit of schadenfreude by government workers in her charge makes me fear the (seemingly) inevitable Senatorial anointment of Kamala Harris.  The unabashed enjoyment of mastery over others is not an attractive trait in my eyes.