In In re Ewing (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 455, the defendant was initially arrested in San Diego on a firearm possession charge and later failed to appear for court proceedings. Some seven months later, he was arrested in Alameda County for forgery and holds were placed by San Diego and by state parole authorities. After his return to San Diego and conviction there, he was credited with presentence time but it did not include the time in Alameda County when he was under a hold from San Diego. The Ewing court held that the confinement in Alameda was not attributable to proceedings related to the firearm charges in San Diego but was "attributable solely to the Alameda County proceedings related to the Alameda County forgery conduct." ( Id ., at pp. 458-459.) The court stated: "On the record before us the hold in question played no part either in Ewing's initial custody or his ongoing custody in Alameda County." ( Id ., at p. 459.) Then came the interesting footnote, however, stating: "The record shows there were three holds, including the hold in question. Even assuming the truth of Ewing's assertion he could have posted the bail fixed for the Alameda County forgery charge, there were still left two holds other than the hold under consideration. Thus, there is no showing the hold here in question had any relationship to Ewing's ongoing custody. "Nothing we say is meant to imply an arrest pursuant to a bench warrant would not result in custody attributable to proceedings related to the same conduct for which a defendant is convicted. In Ewing's case, however, the record shows he was arrested and taken into custody solely because of the Alameda County conduct, entirely different from and unrelated to the San Diego conduct giving rise to the issuance of the warrant and resulting hold." (At p. 459.)