P. v. Hanson

Filed 8/30/07 P. v. Hanson CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yolo)

----

After he passed counterfeit $20 bills at a casino, defendant Derek Anthony Hanson pleaded no contest in Yolo County Superior Court (case No. CR-F-05-0003574) to making or possessing a fictitious instrument (Pen. Code,  476).

Before he could be sentenced in this action, however, he was convicted in San Mateo County Superior Court (case No. SC06‑0875A) of conspiracy (Pen. Code,  182, subd. (a)(1)), and was sentenced to state prison for one year four months.

When defendant appeared for sentencing in the Yolo County matter, the trial court designated the Yolo County conviction as the principal term, and ordered the San Mateo County commitment to run consecutively as the subordinate term, for an aggregate state prison term of two years eight months.

Although the Yolo County Superior Court noted at sentencing both that in Yolo County, [defendant is] entitled to one day of custody credit and that [defendant] has both pre-sentence and post-sentence credits . . . from San Mateo County, the Yolo County abstract of judgment reflects only the one day of custody credit earned in connection with his conviction in the Yolo County case.

On appeal, defendant contends the Yolo County Superior Court erred in failing to ensure that its abstract of judgment reflects presentence credit for the subordinate term (San Mateo County Superior Court case No. SC06‑0875A). According to materials submitted with defendants request for judicial notice, he was awarded 25 days of presentence credit in the San Mateo County matter that were not included.

The People concede the error and we agree. When a sentencing court imposes multiple, consecutive determinate terms, it must combine those terms into a single aggregate term of imprisonment for all convictions. (Pen. Code,  1170.1; see In re Reeves (2005) 35 Cal.4th 765, 772-773.) Then, because principal and subordinate terms form a single aggregate term, custody credit for a subordinate term should be reflected in the abstract of judgment. (People v. Lacebal (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1061, 1066.)

DISPOSITION

The Yolo County Superior Court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment to reflect defendants presentence credits in both the Yolo County and San Mateo County convictions, and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As amended, the judgment is affirmed.

BUTZ , J.

We concur:

SIMS , Acting P. J.

HULL, J.

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.