Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Deangelis

P. v. Deangelis

Filed 2/21/08 P. v. Deangelis CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

DONALD SANFORD DEANGELIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

G038348

(Super. Ct. No. 06CF0932)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, William Lee Evans, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

Stephen S. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel and James D. Dutton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Donald Sanford DeAngelis, represented himself at trial. He was convicted of possession of two baggies of methamphetamine and admitted two strikes and four prison term priors. He was sentenced to 44 months in prison. The trial court arrived at this number by striking one of his strike enhancements and three of his prison term priors. It imposed the low term of 16 months for the instant offense, doubled that term in consideration of the remaining strike prior, and added a year for the remaining prison term prior.

Counsel was appointed for DeAngelis on appeal and challenged the fact the trial court awarded DeAngelis only 414 days of presentence credits (276 days actually served plus 138 days for good conduct credit). Careful analysis by counsel convinced both the Attorney General and this court that the proper number of credits is actually almost three weeks more. Remarkably, while they disagree about the actual computation (DeAngelis says he should get 327 days actual time and 106 days good conduct credits; the Attorney Generals reckoning arrives at 325 days plus 108 days conduct credits), the parties agree that when all is said and done, DeAngelis is entitled to credits totaling 433 days. Both sides agree postsentence credits are a matter for computation by state prison authorities in the first instance and not before us at this time.

We see no reason to determine whether appellants 433 days or the Attorney Generals 433 days represents the correct calculation. 433 days is 433 days, and while that is perhaps not the most profound holding ever reached by this court, it seems

to do the trick in this case. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment and to forward a copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.

BEDSWORTH, J.

WE CONCUR:

RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.

MOORE, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.

Description	Donald Sanford DeAngelis, represented himself at trial. He was convicted of possession of two baggies of methamphetamine and admitted two strikes and four prison term priors. He was sentenced to 44 months in prison. The trial court arrived at this number by striking one of his strike enhancements and three of his prison term priors. It imposed the low term of 16 months for the instant offense, doubled that term in consideration of the remaining strike prior, and added a year for the remaining prison term prior. Counsel was appointed for DeAngelis on appeal and challenged the fact the trial court awarded DeAngelis only 414 days of presentence credits (276 days actually served plus 138 days for good conduct credit). Careful analysis by counsel convinced both the Attorney General and this court that the proper number of credits is actually almost three weeks more. Remarkably, while they disagree about the actual computation (DeAngelis says he should get 327 days actual time and 106 days good conduct credits; the Attorney Generals reckoning arrives at 325 days plus 108 days conduct credits), the parties agree that when all is said and done, DeAngelis is entitled to credits totaling 433 days. Both sides agree postsentence credits are a matter for computation by state prison authorities in the first instance and not before us at this time. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.