P. v. Hardman
Filed 2/4/13 P. v. Hardman CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
BRANDON DASHAWN HARDMAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
B239252
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA390499)
APPEAL from a judgment of
the Superior Court of
County, Craig Richman, Judge.
Affirmed as modified, remanded with directions.
California Appellate
Project, Jonathan B. Steiner and Ann Krausz, 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, Chung L. Mar and Victoria B. Wilson, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant Brandon Dashawn Hardman was
charged and convicted of one count of attempted
second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664/211), arising out of an incident
occurring on October 28, 2011.
sentence and placed appellant on probation for a period of three years. One condition of probation was that appellant
serve 25 days in county jail. The court
gave appellant credit for 25 days of custody, consisting of 22 days of actual
custody and an additional 3 days of work time/good time credit (15 percent of
22).
Appellant
contends that the court miscalculated presentence
concluded that he had been in custody 22 days, when in fact, he was entitled to
24 days of actual custody credit.
name="_ftnref2" title="">[2] Second, he contends the court wrongly
concluded that he was entitled to no more than 15 percent good time/work time
credit based on the mistaken belief that the crime of attempted robbery fit the
definition of a violent felony for purposes of section 2933.1.
crime occurred after October 1, 2011, he was entitled to day-for-day work
time/good time credit based on every day spent in county jail, under recent
amendments to section 4019.
name="_ftnref4" title="">[4]
Respondent
does not dispute any of appellant’s contentions.
applicable authorities and found no defect in appellant’s analysis. Moreover, appellant complied with section
1237.1, which states that no appeal shall be taken on the ground of an error in
the calculation of presentence custody credits unless the defendant first
presents the claim in the trial court.
On July 11, 2012, appellant sought resolution of the
custody credit issue in the trial court, and was denied relief. Accordingly, we agree that the judgment must
be modified to reflect the correct amount of presentence custody credit.
The judgment
is modified to reflect 48 days of presentence custody credit, consisting of 24
days of actual credit and 24 days of good time/work time credit. In all other respects the judgment is
affirmed. The superior court is directed
to prepare an amended abstract of judgment to reflect this modification and to
forward a copy to the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
MANELLA,
J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P. J.
WILLHITE, J.
Because the only issue on appeal
relates to presentence custody credits, we do not summarize the facts of the
offense. Undesignated statutory
references are to the Penal Code.
There is no dispute that
appellant was taken into custody on October 28, 2011, released on his own
recognizance on November 16, 2011, remanded into custody on February 6, 2012
(the day of the guilty verdict), and sentenced on February 9, 2012. Therefore, he was entitled to 20 days of
credit for the period between October 28 and November 16, and 4 days of credit
for the period between February 6 and 9.
(See People v. Bravo (1990)
219 Cal.App.3d 729, 735 [custody credits computed on full period of custody,
with all partial days treated as whole days]; accord, People v. Rajanayagam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 42, 48;
899, 920.)
