Filed 4/6/22 P. v. Arredondo CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. David A. Gunn, Judge. Affirmed in part; reversed in part with directions.

Steven A. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Heather M. Clark, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

This is an appeal from the August 12, 2020 judgment resentencing defendant and appellant, Jason Aaron Arredondo, following a prior appeal and review in the California Supreme Court. In 2015, defendant was convicted of committing 14 sex offenses against four minors, and the jury also found one strike law (Pen. Code, § 667.61) and other sentencing enhancement allegations true. On August 4, 2015, defendant was sentenced to 33 years, plus 275 years to life, in state prison.[1]

Defendant appealed, and in 2017 this court remanded the matter for resentencing on counts 1, 12, and 14. (People v. Arredondo, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 981.) Our state Supreme Court granted review, and in 2019 it reversed defendant’s convictions in counts 3, 4, and 5 and remanded the matter for resentencing on counts 1, 12, and 14 (as this court had ordered). (People v. Arredondo (2019) 8 Cal.5th 694, 712.)

At resentencing on August 12, 2020, the court dismissed the charges in counts 3, 4, and 5, after the People said they would not retry the charges. The court then sentenced defendant on the remaining 11 counts, and sentencing enhancements, to 21 years four months, plus 200 years to life in state prison.

In this appeal, the parties agree that the August 12, 2020 judgment must be amended in two respects to correct unauthorized portions of the sentence: (1) to reduce defendant’s originally imposed court operations and court facilities fees to reflect that he now stands convicted in 11 counts, not 14; and (2) to award defendant 1,835 additional days of custody credits, for the days he was in custody between August 4, 2015 (his original sentencing) and August 12, 2020. We agree that the judgment must be amended in these respects. Thus, we amend the judgment and remand the matter to the superior court with directions to prepare amended abstracts of judgment, and an amended sentencing minute order, reflecting these amendments. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Applicable Law

A sentence that “could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstances in the particular case” constitutes an unauthorized sentence and a non-waivable error, which may be corrected at any time, including on appeal. (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354-355.) Unauthorized sentences are “not waivable” because they present “ ‘pure questions of law,’ ” which are “ ‘ “clear and correctable” ’ ” without regard to factual issues presented at sentencing, and they do not require remand for further factual findings. (People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852.) As the parties agree, defendant’s August 12, 2020 judgment includes unauthorized sentences, correctable in this appeal.

B. The Per-Conviction Fees Must Be Reduced

Defendant’s originally imposed court operations fee of $560 reflects $40 for each of his 14 original convictions ($40 times 14 equals $560). As the parties agree, this $560 fee must be reduced to $440, to reflect that defendant now stands convicted in 11 counts, not 14 ($40 times 11 equals $440). (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1).) Likewise, defendant’s original court facilities fee of $420 ($30 times 14 equals $420) must be reduced to $330 ($30 times 11 equals $330.) (Gov Code, § 70373.)

C. Defendant Is Entitled to 1,835 Additional Days of Custody Credits

At his original sentencing on August 4, 2015, defendant was awarded 701 days of custody credits for the time he actually spent in custody before August 4, 2015. (Pen. Code, § 2900.5.) At his resentencing on August 12, 2020, the court did not award defendant any additional custody credits for the 1,835 days he spent in custody between August 4, 2015 and August 12, 2020. (Pen. Code, § 2900.1.)

As the parties agree, defendant is entitled to an additional 1,835 days of custody credits against his August 12, 2020 sentence, for a total of 2,536, reflecting the 2,536 days he actually spent in custody before August 12, 2020. (Pen. Code, §§ 2900.5, 2900.1; People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29 [“[W]hen a prison term already in progress is modified as the result of an appellate sentence remand, the sentencing court must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time the defendant has already served, whether in jail or prison, and whether before or since he was originally committed and delivered to prison custody.”].)

III. DISPOSITION

The August 12, 2020 judgment is amended in the following respects: (1) to reduce defendant’s court operations fee from $560 to $440 (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)); (2) to reduce defendant’s court facilities fee from $420 to $330 (Gov. Code, § 70373); and (3) to award 1,835 additional days of actual custody credits, in addition to the 701 days of actual custody credits he was previously awarded, for a total of 2,536 days of actual custody credits, against his August 12, 2020 sentence (Pen. Code, §§ 2900.5, 2900.1; People v. Buckhalter, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 29). The matter is remanded to the superior court with directions to prepare (1) amended abstracts of judgment, reflecting these amendments to the judgment, and (2) an amended sentencing minute order, also reflecting these amendments to the judgment. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

SLOUGH

J.

[1] We grant defendant’s request that we take judicial notice of the record in his prior appeal, People v. Arredondo (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 950 [E064206]. (Jocer Enterprises, Inc. v. Price (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 559, 563-564, fn. 2.)