California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Gali, C086355 (Cal. App. 2019):
Although defendant argues he had a right to be present during the December 2017 hearing based on self-serving statements in his certificate of probable cause request that he had "issues with [his] attorney," the calculation of defendant's presentence custody credits was a purely legal matter and not subject to the trial court's discretion. There is nothing to indicate that defendant's presence (1) was necessary for an " 'opportunity for effective cross-examination,' " for purposes of the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause, (2) would have " 'contribute[d] to the fairness of the procedure' " for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, or (3) bore a " ' " ' "reasonably substantial relation to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge," ' " ' " for purposes of article I, section 15 of the California Constitution or sections 977 and 1043. (People v. Cole, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 1231-1232.)
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.