legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Pirtle

P. v. Pirtle
11:22:2013





P




 

 

P. v. Pirtle

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 11/12/13  P. v.
Pirtle CA4/1















>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.

 

 

 

 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

DIVISION ONE

 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

 

 
>






THE
PEOPLE,

 

            Plaintiff and Respondent,

 

            v.

 

RICKY
DON PIRTLE,

 

            Defendant and Appellant.

 


  D063488

 

 

  (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD243096,

  SCN312679)


 

            APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">San Diego
County, Dwayne K. Moring, Judge.  Judgment affirmed as modified.

            John L.
Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

            Kamala
D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and
Jennifer B. Truong, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

 

            Ricky Don
Pirtle appeals after he pleaded guilty to one count of href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">possessing a controlled substance for sale
in two separate cases (SCD243096,
SCN312679).  He received a total
term of five years in local custody.  He
contends, the Attorney General concedes, and we agree that the trial court erroneously
calculated his total presentence custody credits by calculating the actual
custody credits and conduct credits for his two cases separately, rather than
adding the actual custody credits for his two cases together and then
calculating his conduct credits based on the aggregate number of actual custody
credits.

DISCUSSION

            Pirtle
served 57 and 23 actual days in custody, respectively, in case numbers SCD243096
and SCN312679.  The trial court was
required to aggregate the actual days in custody, resulting in an award of 80
days of actual custody credits.  (>People v. Culp (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th
1278, 1283–1284.)  Applying the two days
of presentence conduct credits for every two-day period of confinement calculation
under amended Penal Code section 4019, subdivision (f), Pirtle should be
awarded 80 days of conduct credits, for a total of 160 days of presentence
custody credits.  Accordingly, the
judgment must be modified to reflect a total of 160 days of presentence custody
credits.

DISPOSITION

            The judgment
is modified to reflect a total of 160 days of presentence custody credit.  The clerk of the superior court is directed to
prepare an amended abstract of judgment and forward a copy to the appropriate
authorities.  As so modified, the
judgment is affirmed.

 

 

                                                                                                            McINTYRE, J.

 

WE CONCUR:

 

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

 

McDONALD, J.







Description Ricky Don Pirtle appeals after he pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a controlled substance for sale in two separate cases (SCD243096, SCN312679). He received a total term of five years in local custody. He contends, the Attorney General concedes, and we agree that the trial court erroneously calculated his total presentence custody credits by calculating the actual custody credits and conduct credits for his two cases separately, rather than adding the actual custody credits for his two cases together and then calculating his conduct credits based on the aggregate number of actual custody credits.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale