The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie, J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant John Beebe appeals from the judgment entered after this court reversed 3 of 10 burglary or attempted burglary counts and remanded for further proceedings (People v. Beebe (Aug. 10, 2009, C058783) [nonpub. opn.] (Beebe I)).
On appeal, defendant contends: the trial court erred in resentencing him when it failed to calculate and award him actual credits for the period he was in custody between his original sentencing on April 11, 2008, and his resentencing following Beebe I, on November 20, 2009. The People concede the issue and also ask us to impose certain mandatory fees and assessments that the trial court neglected to impose. We shall remand the matter back to the trial court.
In Beebe I, this court affirmed defendant's convictions on six of seven residential burglary counts and one of three attempted residential burglary convictions, as well as his convictions for possession of stolen property, burglary tools, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia. (Beebe I, supra, C058783, at pp. 1, 20.) However, because we determined that defendant's post-arrest confession to police was involuntary, we reversed one conviction for residential burglary and two convictions of attempted residential burglary as tainted by the involuntary confession. (Id. at pp. 1-2.) We remanded the matter to permit the People to decide whether to retry defendant on the three reversed convictions. (Id. at p. 23.)
On remand, the People elected not to retry defendant on the three reversed counts. The trial court resentenced him, imposed a prison term of 14 years, and ultimately filed an abstract of judgment which awarded defendant 633 days of credit for time served, including 423 actual days and 210 conduct credits. The abstract also contains the following among "[o]ther orders": "Court acknowledges CDC [California Department of Corrections] to grant additional 588 days of CDC time credit (4-11-08 through 11-20-09)."
I Presentence Custody Credits
Defendant contends the trial court erred when resentencing him because "it failed to properly calculate his custody credits" as required by People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20 (Buckhalter). The People concede the error and we agree.
A defendant "sentenced to prison for criminal conduct is entitled to credit against his [or her] term for all actual days of [presentence] confinement solely attributable to the same conduct." (Buckhalter, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 30.) When, as here, an appellate remand results in modification of a felony sentence during the term of imprisonment, the trial court must also calculate the actual time the defendant has already served and credit that time against the "subsequent sentence." (Id. at p. 23.) "Where a defendant has served any portion of his sentence under a commitment based upon a judgment which judgment is subsequently declared invalid or which is modified during the term of ...