California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Almodovar, 190 Cal.App.3d 732, 235 Cal.Rptr. 616 (Cal. App. 1987):
In People v. Enriquez, supra, 173 Cal.App.3d 990, 219 Cal.Rptr. 325, the trial court erroneously granted defendant probation on the condition she serve nine months in county jail. On appeal, she argued it would be unjust to require her to serve a prison sentence, inasmuch as she had completed her nine-month jail term. The court disagreed, "deem[ing] it neither unfair nor unjust on the record before [it] that defendant ... should serve the term prescribed by law even after having suffered confinement as a condition of erroneously granted probation. Defendant argued for probation in the face of a clear statute providing otherwise. Her momentary victory should not have been viewed by her as clear cut or impregnable. 'When a defendant's own actions or actions in which [s]he has acquiesced have caused the delay between the commission of the crime and the entering of prison, [s]he ordinarily will not be heard to contend that the delay constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.' (United States v. Albanese (2d Cir.1977) 554 F.2d 543, 549.)" (173 Cal.App.3d at p. 999, 219 Cal.Rptr. 325.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.