THE COURT’S DUTY UNDER PENAL CODE § 2900.5(d):

THE COURT’S DUTY UNDER PENAL CODE § 2900.5(d):

THE COURT’S DUTY UNDER PENAL CODE § 2900.5(d):

THE INTEGRITY OF LIBERTY DEMANDS PRECISION**

By Devon T. White | Dropping Jewels That You Can Use | ThaWilsonBlock Magazine

Under California Penal Code § 2900.5(d), the sentencing court bears a non-discretionary duty—a mandate rooted in the Constitution itself—to determine each date of admission to and release from custody prior to sentencing. The total number of days to be credited must be explicitly stated in the Abstract of Judgment, as required by Penal Code § 1213.

This requirement is not procedural trivia. It is a safeguard of liberty.

Each day of custody must be counted with exactness because every unlawful day spent in confinement is a day the State has stolen. When the court neglects to comply with § 2900.5(d), it violates not just statute but due process, rendering the judgment defective on its face and the confinement unlawful.

The Abstract of Judgment stands as the sole lawful warrant for imprisonment.

If it omits the mandatory credit findings or fails to conform to statutory command, it ceases to be a valid judicial instrument—it becomes a false document, converting lawful custody into false imprisonment under color of law.

When liberty is measured in days, precision is justice.

To ignore § 2900.5(d) is to tolerate the unlawful deprivation of freedom itself.

True justice requires lawful confinement—nothing more, nothing less.

The law is clear. The duty is mandatory. The integrity of the court, and the liberty of the people, depend upon it.