By Neha Suri
ROSEVILLE, CA – There was confusion this Monday at the Placer County Superior Court after the accused claimed they served 110 days for a 35-day sentence.
The accused, who faces misdemeanor DUI/driving under the influence charges, was sentenced to four years of informal probation and 35 days of jail time, but his defense counsel claimed that time credit when the accused was first arrested covered the necessary jail time.
Upon confirming if this was the case with the probation officer, it was discovered the accused served 110 days for only a 35-day jail sentence.
After discovering this discrepancy, Judge Todd Irby asked what was to be done, as the accused’s time served “exceeded by light years” the time he was sentenced to serve.
Probation later stated that there was a separate charge for which the accused served time from April to July of last year, and accounting for this and a separate count from Stockton County, the accused may instead only have seven to 13 days of time served accrued.
Defense counsel seemed confused by this, believing that the accused had already served the necessary time.
Additionally, due to the accused’s job and other commitments, defense counsel requested for online completion of the required programs.
The prosecution and Judge Irby seemed initially unsure if such a program existed but after another attorney mentioned one by name and the accused explained he was in the process of enrolling in such a program, Judge Irby stated that as long as the prosecution was fine with the program and it meets Placer County’s requirements, the program could be done online.
Judge Irby added the accused is required to have an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) as a breathalyzer before starting all vehicles he drives for one year and imposed 32 hours of community service in lieu of a base fine.
Following Judge Irby’s sentencing, there still appeared to be confusion and apprehension by the defense for the time served by the accused in this case. Judge Irby stated that the matter will be passed for now.
The case is set for review Oct. 31 back in the Placer County Superior Court.
