How does a reversal of a judgment or order leave the proceeding in the same situation as it stood before the reversal?

We recognize that, as a general rule, "'the reversal of a judgment or order ordinarily leaves the proceeding in the same situation in which it stood before the judgment or order was made.' [Citations.]" (People v. Eroshevich (2014) 60 Cal.4th 583, 593-594.) Nevertheless, the reversal did not make defendant a free man. Most important, he was not returned to presentence custody; he remained in postsentence custody.

In People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, the defendant was convicted and sentenced and began serving his sentence. (Id. at p. 24.) The court of appeal held that the sentence was erroneous in one respect; it also held that the trial court had failed to exercise its discretion in another respect. (Id. at pp. 24-25.) It remanded with directions to modify the sentence and to exercise the necessary discretion. (Id. at p. 25.)

During at least part of the time he was awaiting resentencing, the defendant was housed in the county jail. (People v. Buckhalter, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 26-27.) At the resentencing hearing, the trial court ruled that the time he had spent in jail was not presentence custody for purposes of the calculation of custody credit. (Id. at pp. 26-27.)