P. v.Thompson
Filed 3/2/12 P. v.Thompson CA2/5
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
GARY ALBERT THOMPSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
B229963
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. YA076736)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court of
County, John Vernon Meigs, Judge.
Affirmed as modified.
Rita L.
Swenor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D.
Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General,
Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Blythe J.
Leszkay, and Tasha G. Timbadia, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant
Gary Albert Thompson was convicted by a jury of one count of
Penal Code section 459. He was sentenced
to six years in state prison. Execution
of sentence was suspended. Defendant was
placed on five years’ probation on the condition, among others, that he serve
345 days in the county jail. We modify
the judgment and affirm as modified.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Peace Officer Personnel Records
Defendant
requested that we independently review the record of the trial court’s in
camera hearing for review of peace officer personnel records. (People
v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-1232; Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, 535.) On May 6, 2010, the trial court conducted an
in camera hearing. The court found no
complaints responsive to defendant’s motion.
On December 9, 2011, we assigned the trial court to conduct record
correction proceedings pursuant to People
v. Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at page 1231.
On February 24, 2012, the trial court filed under seal with this court
its transcript of the January 5, 2012 in camera record correction proceedings,
together with any papers presented in that hearing. We have reviewed the transcripts of the in
camera hearings and any peace officer personnel records presented at those
hearings. The trial court did not abuse
its discretion in ruling on defendant’s peace officer personnel records
disclosure motion. (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 330; People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827.)
B. Presentence Custody Credit
Defendant
was arrested on December 20, 2009, and sentenced on October 20, 2010. The trial court gave him credit for 300 days
in presentence custody and 45 days of conduct credit. He was entitled to credit for 305 days in
presentence custody and 152 days of conduct credit for a total presentence
custody credit of 457 days. (
25-26; People v. Smith (1989) 211
Cal.App.3d 523, 527.)
C. Court Facilities Assessment
The trial
court failed to impose a mandatory court facilities assessment under Government
Code section 70373, subdivision (a). (
269, 272, 274.) Because defendant was
convicted by a jury on May 25, 2010, the
correct amount is $30. (Gov. Code §
70373, subd. (a) as amended by Stats. 2009 (2009-2010 4th Ex. Sess.) ch. 22, §
29, eff. July 28, 2009; People v. Davis (2010)
185 Cal.App.4th 998, 1001; see People v.
Castillo (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1414-1415.)
III. DISPOSITION
The
judgment is modified to include a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, §
70373, subd. (a)) and to grant defendant credit for 305 days in presentence
custody plus 152 days of conduct credit for a total presentence custody credit
of 457 days. The judgment is affirmed in
all other respects. Upon remittitur
issuance, the abstract of judgment must be corrected to accurately reflect the
foregoing. The clerk of the superior court
shall deliver a copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the California
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
TURNER,
P.J.
We concur:
ARMSTRONG,
J.
KRIEGLER,
J.
