P. v. Murray
Filed 10/18/07 P. v. Murray 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(San Joaquin)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICKEY PAUL MURRAY, Defendant and Appellant. | C054611 (Super. Ct. Nos. SF089438A, SF095066A, TF032315A) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] |
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on September 18, 2007, be modified as follows:
On page 3, the following new paragraph is added after the second paragraph:
Defendant nevertheless claims the restitution fine in case A should be stricken because the court gave him credit for time served against the fine. When the court imposed the restitution fine in case A, however, the court also imposed a one-year jail sentence. Thus, defendants credit for time served must first be applied to his jail sentence and only the remaining days may be credited to the fine. (Pen. Code, 2900.5, subd. (a); People v. McGarry (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 644, 647.) Here, the court gave defendant credit for 72 days in custody; given the one-year jail sentence, there were no remaining days to apply toward the restitution fine. Accordingly, the courts attempt to give defendant credit for time served against the fine was in error and defendants claim is without merit.
There is no change in the judgment.
Defendants petition for rehearing is denied.
BY THE COURT:
DAVIS, Acting P.J.
RAYE , J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
