P. v. Ringold
Filed 3/12/07 P. v. Ringold 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. DOUGLAS E. RINGOLD, Defendant and Appellant. | D048256 (Super. Ct. No. SCD192446) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Melinda J. Lasater, Judge. Affirmed.
A jury convicted Douglas E. Ringold of transporting a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a).) In a bifurcated hearing, the trial court found the controlled substance Ringold transported was not for personal use (Pen. Code, 1210, subd. (a)),[1]he had two prior strikes ( 667, subds. (b)-(i)), a prior conviction of possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a), 11370, subd. (a)), and had served three prior prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b), 668). The court struck one prior strike and one prior prison term enhancement and sentenced him to prison for 10 years: double the four-year middle term for transporting a controlled substance with a prior strike, enhanced by two 1-year terms for prior prison terms. The court awarded 372 days credit for time served: 248 actual days and 124 days of section 4019 credit. Ringold contends the trial court erred in not awarding him one additional day credit for time served.
FACTS
At approximately 8:55 p.m. on July 16, 2005, a San Diego Police Officer saw Ringold make an unlawful turn while driving on Logan Avenue. The officer pulled into a parking lot behind Ringold and activated his overhead lights. A backup officer saw Ringold reach into his waistband. The officers arrested Ringold and found a plastic bag containing 9.74 grams of rock cocaine on the ground near Ringold's foot. Because Ringold raises only an issue regarding credit for time served, we need not recite the facts in greater detail.
DISCUSSION
Ringold contends the trial court erred in awarding credit for 248 days rather than 249 actual days in custody. He argues the court erred in failing to award credit for the day of his arrest, July 16, 2005, because he was not booked into custody until early in the morning on July 17. Ringold's claim is not cognizable on appeal because he did not question in the trial court the award of credit for time served. The Court of Appeal will not entertain a challenge to credit for time served absent the defendant raising the issue in the trial court. (People v. Salazar (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557.)
In any case, we reject Ringold's contention that the trial court erred in commencing credit for actual time he served in custody on the day he was booked into jail not the day of his arrest. The record does not indicate why the probation report stated that Ringold's custody began on July 17, 2006, when Ringold was arrested on July 16. However, we assume Ringold is accurate when he says the date July 17 was chosen because he was not booked into custody until after midnight. Assuming Ringold is correct, the trial court properly awarded credit for time served because credit for time served commences on the day a defendant is booked into custody. (People v. Ravaux (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 914, 919-920.) The trial court did not err in awarding Ringold credit for time served.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
McINTYRE, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
