Rape Case, Time Credits for Residential Drug Program

On January 26, 2020, Defendant Elian Angel Mendoza Davis met C.W., age 16, at a party hosted by C.W.’s sister-in-law.  Alcohol was served at the party and C.W. apparently drank quite a bit and smoked marijuana.

Some partygoers saw C.W. vomit several times and between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m., C.W. decided to go to bed, so she and Davis and another partygoer, M. (female minor), went upstairs to sleep.

About 5:00 a.m., J. (a male minor) heard a female voice say “Ow!” and looked into a bedroom and saw M. sleeping alone.  J. asked M. where C.W. was and M. said she did not know.  At that point, C.W. came out of another room, sobbing.

Mr. Davis followed C.W. out of the room and apologized, stating, “I didn’t mean to hurt anyone” and left the house.

C.W. was then taken to the hospital, where she hospital personnel collected evidence for a rape kit and called the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department. 

Mr. Davis was arrested the same day and posted bail two days later.  He was charged with forcible rape of a child victim over 14 years old (Penal Code § 261(a)(2)), rape by use of drugs (Penal Code § 261(a)(3)), sexual penetration by a foreign object of a minor over 14 years (Penal Code § 289(a)(1)(C)), sexual penetration by a foreign object of an intoxicated person (Penal Code § 289(e)), four counts of assault with intent to commit rape (Penal Code § 220(a)(2)), forcible oral copulation with a minor over 14 years (Penal Code § 287(c)(2)(C)), and oral copulation by anesthesia or controlled substance (Penal Code § 287(i)).

Almost six months later, while his sexual assault case was still pending, Mr. Davis was arrested for possession of Percocet without a prescription.  He then voluntarily entered “Center Point,” a residential drug treatment program for 90 days on August 10.  The judge did not order this as a condition of release or bail.

After being discharged from Center Point, Mr. Davis pleaded no contest to raping an intoxicated person in return for a three-year prison sentence and dismissal of all other charges.

In sentencing, the judge denied Mr. Davis’ request for 90 days of custody credit based on his stay at Center Point because it was not ordered, approved by the judge and not related to the rape offense.  Moreover, Mr. Davis failed to present any information regarding the dates of his admission to and release from the program.

Mr. Davis then appealed this sentencing order to the First Appellate District Court, arguing that he should get credit for his time at Center Point because when he committed the rape, he was drunk and high on drugs, which Center Point treated.

The People opposed the appeal, arguing that credit should not be given because the judge did not order it, the program did not provide sex offender treatment and the program was not entered until six months after his arrest for rape, but it was entered just 18 days after his arrest for illegal possession of Percocet without a prescription. 

The First Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s ruling, noting that Penal Code § 2900.5, which addresses credit to be awarded for pre-conviction programs, requires that the program be custodial in nature, which a voluntary admission is not in this case.  Secondly, section 2900.5(b) requires “that the custody be attributable to the proceedings relating to the same conduct for which defendant has been convicted.”  See also People v. Davenport (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 240, 245.

Lastly, Mr. Davis argued, by way of a footnote that under principals of equal protection, he should be given custody credit for his time at Center Point.  The appellate court refused to consider this argument, citing to Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal. App. 5th 467, 554-555 (party forfeited argument by raising it exclusively in a footnote); People v. Lucatero (2008) 166 Cal. App. 4th 1110, 1115, fn. 1 (“A footnote is not a proper place to raise an argument on appeal”). 

In any event, the appellate court stated, it would reject such an argument because the person who enters a residential drug treatment program voluntarily is not similarly situated to one who enters it upon a court order because the person who enters it voluntarily faces no potential penal consequences for his or her failure to complete the program or comply with its requirements.

For more information about custody credits, please click on the following articles: