P. v. Morgan
Filed 11/20/07 P. v. Morgan 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL AARON MORGAN, Defendant and Appellant. | C055428 (Super. Ct. Nos. CM021492, CM021544) |
In case No. CM021544, defendant Michael Aaron Morgan pleaded no contest to three counts of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459, 460, subd. (b))[1]and admitted a prior prison term allegation ( 667.5, subd. (b)). In case No. CM021492, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of identity theft. ( 530.5, subd. (a).) Defendant was sentenced to state prison for an aggregate term of six years but, pursuant to defendants request, the trial court suspended defendants sentence and committed him to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC).
Subsequently, defendant was excluded from CRC due to his dual commitment status as a parole violator and a civil addict. CRC referred defendant to the trial court for further proceedings, and the court reinstated criminal proceedings. On resentencing, the trial court did not award defendant any custody credits for the time he spent at CRC.
Defendant appealed.[2] Citing People v. Mitchell (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1145, we noted that defendant was erroneously not awarded any custody credit or section 2933 credit for the time he spent in CRC. Accordingly, we remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to make a determination of defendants credits while at CRC.
On remand, the trial court issued an amended abstract of judgment reflecting identical custody credits to those on the original abstract of judgment, but adding the following statement: Both parties agreed that CDC would decide the CRC credits.
Defendant has again appealed, contending the trial court erred by failing to comply with this courts directions on remand. The Attorney General concedes the issue, and we shall accept the concession.
It is a trial courts duty at the time of sentencing to determine the total number of days to be credited to a defendant. ( 2900.5, subd. (d).) Furthermore, when an appellate court remands a cause with directions requiring specific proceedings on remand, those directions are binding on the trial court and must be followed. (In re Justin S. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1434-1435.) Thus, under both statute and this courts direction, the trial court was not authorized to delegate its obligation to determine defendants custody credits.
Accordingly, we again remand the matter to the trial court to determine the custody credits to which defendant is entitled in accord with our prior unpublished opinion in People v. Morgan (Dec. 5, 2006, C050050).
Disposition
The matter is remanded to the trial court for its determination of defendants credits while at CRC. The judgment otherwise is affirmed.
DAVIS , J.
We concur:
SIMS , Acting P.J.
HULL, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.
[1] Hereafter, undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.
[2] Pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d), we take judicial notice of our unpublished decision in People v. Morgan (Dec. 5, 2006, C050050).
