Filed 9/3/26 P. v. Carrasco 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
(Butte)
THE PEOPLE, C103357
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. 23CF00922)
v.
GERARDO ANTHONY CARRASCO,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Gerardo Anthony Carrasco pleaded guilty to two violations of
the Sex Offender Registration Act. (See Pen. Code, § 290, subd. (a).)1 The trial
court sentenced him to three years in state prison, awarded more days of presentence
custody credit (1,460 days) than his prison commitment (1,095 days), and imposed a
$300 restitution fine, a $300 parole revocation fine, an $80 court operations assessment,
and a $60 criminal conviction assessment.
Defendant now contends that under section 2900.5, the trial court should have
applied his excess custody credit against his fines and assessments. As we will explain,
however, section 2900.5 does not apply to restitution fines or nonpunitive assessments.
We will affirm the judgment.
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of failing
to update his sex offender registration (count 1) and one count of failing to comply with
transient registration requirements (count 2). In accordance with the plea agreement, the
trial court dismissed a prior strike allegation and sentenced defendant to a stipulated
upper term of three years on count 1 and a concurrent six months on count 2. The trial
court imposed a $300 restitution fine, a $300 parole revocation fine, an $80 court
operations assessment, and a $60 criminal conviction assessment. It awarded defendant
1,460 days of presentence custody credit, which exceeded the total prison commitment.
Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
At the time of sentencing, defendant did not ask the trial court to apply his excess
custody credit against his fines and assessments. But it appears he subsequently did so
in a letter to the trial court, citing People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954. The trial
court denied the request.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends that under section 2900.5, the trial court should have applied
his excess custody credit against his fines and assessments. The contention raises a
matter of statutory interpretation requiring this court to exercise de novo review.
(People v. Carranza (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th Supp. 17, 23.)
Section 2900.5, subdivision (a) provides that all presentence custody credit
awarded to a defendant “shall be credited upon his or her term of imprisonment, or
credited to any base fine that may be imposed, at the rate of not less than one hundred
twenty-five dollars ($125) per day, or more, in the discretion of the court imposing the
sentence. If the total number of days in custody exceeds the number of days of the term
of imprisonment to be imposed, the entire term of imprisonment shall be deemed to have
been served. In any case where the court has imposed both a prison or jail term of
imprisonment and a fine, any days to be credited to the defendant shall first be applied
2
to the term of imprisonment imposed, and thereafter the remaining days, if any, shall be
applied to the base fine.” (Italics added.)
The relevant statutory language has undergone several changes over the years.
Before 2014, any days of custody credit exceeding the term of imprisonment were
required to be applied to “any fine … including, but not limited to, base fines and
restitution fines.” (Former § 2900.5, subd. (a); Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 466.) Effective
January 1, 2014, the Legislature removed the reference to restitution fines, providing
that excess days of custody credit were required to be applied to “any fine, including,
but not limited to, base fines.” (Former § 2900.5, subd. (a); Stats. 2013, ch. 59, § 7.)
After that amendment, excess custody credit could not be applied to a restitution fine.
(People v. Petri (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 82, 92-93 (Petri); People v. Pinon (2016)
6 Cal.App.5th 956, 967, fn. 7 (Pinon).) The current version of the statute went into effect
on January 1, 2017. (Stats. 2016, ch. 769, § 2.) That amendment changed “any fine,
including, but not limited to, base fines” (Stats. 2015, ch. 209, § 2) to “any base fine.”
(§ 2900.5, subd. (a); Stats. 2016, ch. 769, § 2.) The amendment also added: “If an
amount of the base fine is not satisfied by jail credits, or by community service, the
penalties and assessments imposed on the base fine shall be reduced by the percentage
of the base fine that was satisfied.” (Ibid.)
Accordingly, the current version of the statute, which was in effect at the time of
defendant’s offenses, provides for the application of excess custody credit only to the
base fine, with a percentage reduction to any penalties and assessments imposed on the
base fine if the amount of the base fine is not satisfied in full. (§ 2900.5, subd. (a).)
Section 2900.5 does not apply to restitution fines, nor does it apply to nonpunitive
assessments, such as the court operations assessment and the criminal conviction
assessment imposed in this case. (Petri, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th at pp. 92-93; People v.
Rojas (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 48, 56; see also Pinon, supra, Cal.App.5th at p. 967, fn. 7.)
3
Defendant cites People v. Robinson (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 401 for the
proposition that section 2900.5, subdivision (a) “applies to ‘court-ordered payment of
monies that serve as punishment.’ ” But the court operations assessment and criminal
conviction assessment are nonpunitive. And although section 2900.5 applied to
restitution fines at the time Robinson was decided, it no longer does.
In his reply brief, defendant cites the pre-2017 version of the statute, arguing that
his fines and assessments fall within the meaning of “ ‘any fine, including, but not limited
to, base fines.’ ” As we have explained, however, that statutory language was replaced
with “any base fine.” (§ 2900.5, subd. (a); Stats. 2016, ch. 769, § 2.) Section 2900.5
does not apply to any of the fines and assessments imposed in this case.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/
MAURO, Acting P. J.
We concur:
/S/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.
/S/
MESIWALA, J.
4