Filed 9/20/17 P. v. Salazar CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JERRY RICHARD SALAZAR,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
F073852
(Super. Ct. No. F15907633)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Dennis A. Peterson, Judge.
Elizabeth Campbell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Michael A. Canzoneri, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Defendant Jerry Richard Salazar contends on appeal that the trial court miscalculated his presentence custody credits. The People concede and we agree.
On December 28, 2015, defendant pled guilty to unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and he admitted having suffered a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and having served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
On April 5, 2016, the trial court sentenced defendant to three years eight months in prison: 16 months, doubled pursuant to the “Three Strikes” law, plus a one-year prior prison term enhancement. The court calculated 117 days of actual time and 116 conduct credits for a total of 233 days of credit.
On June 2, 2016, defendant filed a notice of appeal. The trial court denied his request for a certificate of probable cause.
On October 4, 2016, appellate counsel wrote a letter to the trial court, requesting correction of the calculation of custody credits`.[1] On October 11, 2016, the trial court denied the request.
The parties agree the trial court miscalculated the time defendant spent in custody, and the court should have credited him with 118 days of actual time and 118 days of conduct credits for a total of 236 days of presentence credits under Penal Code section 4019. We accept the People’s concession.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to reflect that defendant has 236 days of presentence credits, consisting of 118 days of actual local custody time and 118 days of conduct credits. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment to reflect the modifications, and to forward certified copies to the appropriate authorities. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J.
[1] “The failure to award an adequate amount of credits is a jurisdictional error which may be raised at any time.” (People v. Acosta (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 411, 428, fn. 8.) “If there are no other issues, the filing of a motion in the trial court is a prerequisite to raising a presentence credit issue on appeal.” (Id. at pp. 427-428.) An informal writing is adequate. (Pen. Code, § 1237.1.)
