No. A global plea, concurrent sentences, or one sentencing hearing does not by itself combine separately filed California cases for presentence custody credits. Under People v. Cofer, Penal Code section 2900.5 generally treats the proceeding as the particular criminal case; custody time may count in more than one case when the custody was actually attributable to each case. The dates and basis for each hold matter. (People v. Cofer; Penal Code § 2900.5)
Build a case-by-case custody timeline
For every case number, collect the booking and release dates, bail or own-recognizance status, warrants and holds, and the dates each case was pending. Then compare that timeline with the proposed credit calculation and the sentence imposed in each case. One arrest may lead to several charges, but that does not establish that every case caused every day of custody.
The distinction is attribution. If a person remains in custody because of two pending cases at the same time, the same period may be attributable to each. If one case has been resolved or no longer holds the person, later custody may not be attributable to it. Penal Code section 2900.5 addresses actual custody and the conduct or proceeding giving rise to it, and directs the sentencing court to determine and reflect applicable credits. (Penal Code § 2900.5)
In Cofer, the California Supreme Court rejected automatic transfer of custody credit among separate cases merely because the parties reached a global disposition with concurrent terms at a single hearing. The court addressed concurrent sentences; it did not decide that a custody period may be credited twice against consecutive terms. Section 2900.5(b) expressly limits a single period to one credit when consecutive sentences are involved. So do not infer a pooled-credit rule from the word “global” or from concurrency alone. (People v. Cofer; Penal Code § 2900.5(b))
What can be addressed in a negotiated disposition?
A negotiated credit term may be discussed, but Cofer does not turn that possibility into an automatic statutory entitlement. For a specified felony plea, Penal Code section 1192.5 describes the court’s approval and open-court acceptance requirements. The actual written plea and sentencing record should clearly identify any agreed credit treatment; the statute does not itself pool credits across cases. (Penal Code § 1192.5)
Before accepting a disposition, ask counsel to compare the custody record, the credit calculation in each case, and whether the proposed terms are concurrent or consecutive. If a sentence already omits a claimed credit, correction and post-sentence options require separate procedural analysis; a global plea does not guarantee retroactive correction.
The Law Offices of David S. Chesley represents people facing California criminal charges. Call (800) 755-5174 to discuss how separate cases and custody dates may affect a proposed plea.