P. v. Hawkins
Filed 5/23/06 P. v. Hawkins CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEONARD W. HAWKINS, Defendant and Appellant. | A111630 (Marin County Super. Ct. No. SC119462B) |
Defendant appeals from a final judgment after pleading guilty to burglary and related crimes. He contends the trial court erred in refusing to grant him worktime or conduct credits for time spent at the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC) after being excluded from the program. We agree that defendant is entitled to conduct credits.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 21, 2001, defendant pleaded guilty under a plea bargain to commercial burglary, grand theft, and receiving stolen property. On November 14, 2001, the trial court sentenced defendant to a six-year prison term, but then suspended the sentence under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051 and committed him to CRC for treatment for drug addiction.
On November 17, 2004, a unanimous committee at CRC determined defendant was unsuitable for continued treatment at its facility because a felony hold received by CRC on October 21, 2004 precluded him from completing the outpatient phase of the rehabilitation program. Accordingly, on December 24, 2004, CRC notified the trial court that defendant had been excluded from the program as of November 17. On the same date, CRC initiated defendant's transfer back to Marin County for resentencing.
On April 11, 2005, the trial court reinstated criminal proceedings against defendant, and sentenced him to the previously-suspended six-year prison term. The trial court granted defendant 887 days of custody credits for his actual time served at CRC, but refused to grant him conduct credits after finding insufficient evidence in the record to support them. The trial court thereafter denied defendant's motion to amend the abstract of judgment to include an award of conduct credits for time he spent at CRC after his exclusion. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Defendant claims the trial court erred by failing to award worktime or conduct credits for the time he spent at CRC after being excluded from the program.[1] Conduct credits are the presentence good conduct credits afforded by Penal Code section 4019. (People v. Mitchell (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1147, fn. 1.) They are calculated â€
