Filed 7/30/26 P. v. Camacho CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, B344475
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. TA144840)
v.
JUAN CARLOS CAMACHO,
Defendant and
Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Hector E. Gutierrez, Judge. Reversed and
remanded with directions.
Michael C. Sampson, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle, and David A. Voet,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I. INTRODUCTION
Following a remand, the trial court resentenced defendant
Juan Carlos Camacho to a total of 35 years to life for assault with
a deadly weapon (Pen. Code1, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), and a true
finding that defendant had two prior serious felony convictions
for purposes of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(j),
1170.12) and the prior serious felony conviction enhancement
(§ 667, subd. (a)). On appeal, his appointed counsel filed a brief
pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After
reviewing the record, we requested supplemental briefing to
address whether the trial court erred by failing to award
defendant custody credits, and, if so, how many custody credits
defendant was due. Defendant and respondent the Attorney
General agree that the trial court erred by failing to award
custody credits. The parties also agree that defendant was
entitled to 2,755 actual custody credits. As we will explain,
defendant may also be entitled to an award of additional
presentence conduct credits. We reverse and remand to the trial
court to calculate and award defendant the correct amount of
custody credits.
II. BACKGROUND
On April 5, 2018, the Los Angeles County District Attorney
filed an information charging defendant and his codefendant with
assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), assault with a
semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)), and premeditated,
willful, and deliberate attempted murder (premeditated
1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
attempted murder; §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)). The District Attorney
further alleged that defendant had two prior serious and/or
violent felony convictions under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667,
subds. (b)–(j), 1170.12) and a prior serious felony conviction
enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)). Specifically, the information
alleged defendant was convicted of assault with a firearm (§ 245,
subd. (a)(2)) in October 2008 and assault with a deadly weapon
(§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) in July 2011. The District Attorney also
alleged that the crimes were for the benefit of a criminal street
gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).)
A jury convicted defendant of assault with a deadly weapon
and premeditated attempted murder. The jury also found the
gang enhancements to be true. In a separate bench trial, the
trial court found true the allegations that defendant had two
prior serious felony convictions for purposes of the Three Strikes
law and the serious felony conviction enhancement. The court
imposed a sentence of 45 years to life in prison. Defendant was
awarded 394 days actual custody credit, and 59 days of
presentence conduct credit, for a total of 453 days of custody
credit.
In an unpublished opinion, we reversed the conviction for
premeditated attempted murder and the gang enhancements,
and remanded for the People to either retry defendant, or for the
trial court to resentence defendant if the People elected not to
retry him. (People v. Camacho (Sept. 15, 2022, B292093)
[nonpub. opn.].)
The People elected not to retry defendant. Defendant’s
counsel filed a motion for the trial court to exercise its discretion
to strike the prior serious felony convictions. The People opposed
the motion.
3
On January 31, 2025, the trial court held the resentencing
hearing. The court declined to exercise its discretion to strike the
prior convictions. Defendant was resentenced to 35 years to life
in prison. The court did not award any custody credits, but
instead stated that the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation would determine them.
Defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction and
we appointed counsel to represent him. On February 19, 2026,
appointed counsel filed an opening brief that did not identify any
arguable issues and requested that we follow the procedure set
forth in Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. On February 19, 2026, we
notified defendant that his appointed appellate counsel had failed
to find any arguable issues and that he had 30 days within which
to brief any grounds for appeal, contentions, or arguments he
wanted us to consider. Defendant did not file a supplemental
brief.
After we independently reviewed the record (Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d at p. 441), we invited the parties to file supplemental
briefs to address: whether the trial court erred by failing to
award custody credits, and how many custody credits should be
awarded to defendant. The parties submitted supplemental
briefs, agreeing that the trial court erred and that defendant
should be awarded 2,755 actual custody credits, calculated from
his initial arrest date on July 18, 2017, to the date of the
resentencing hearing, January 31, 2025. (See § 2900.1; People v.
Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37.)
4
III. DISCUSSION
We agree with the parties that the trial court erred when it
did not calculate defendant’s actual custody credits, therefore, we
will remand the matter for the court to recalculate defendant’s
custody credits. On remand, the court should award defendant
2,755 actual custody credits. The court should also consider
whether defendant, in light of our vacating of his conviction for
attempted murder and the People declining to retry him, is
entitled to presentence conduct credits pursuant to section 4019
and, if so, to calculate those credits.
5
IV. DISPOSITION
The cause is reversed and remanded for the trial court to
calculate and award defendant custody credits. The court is
directed to forward the corrected and amended abstract of
judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KIM (D.), J.
We concur:
BAKER, Acting P. J.
MOOR, J.
6