IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin)
October 24, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
AARON CHRISTOPHER WARFIELD, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. SF118441A)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte , J.
P. v. Warfield CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
This appeal raises a single issue as to presentence custody credits. Agreeing with defendant that he is entitled to three additional days of conduct credit, we shall remand with directions to the trial court to amend the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In September 2011, the People filed a complaint alleging that defendant Aaron Christopher Warfield had received stolen property (Pen. Code,*fn1 § 496, subd. (a)) and had served five prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The charge stemmed from defendant's possession of 27 pieces of stolen mail, which he admitted stealing, in July 2011.
On September 26, 2011, defendant pled guilty to violating section 496, subdivision (a); pursuant to his plea, the trial court struck the enhancements and sentenced him to two years in state prison and awarded him 19 days of presentence custody credit (11 actual days and eight conduct days).
Defense counsel filed a motion in the trial court for correction of presentence credits (§ 1237.1), arguing that defendant was entitled to 11 conduct days under section 4019, subdivision (f), for a total award of 22 days of presentence credit. The record does not show any response by the trial court.
Defendant argues that he is entitled to three additional days of conduct credit, citing former section 2933, subdivision (e)(1) (eff. Sept. 28, 2010, repealed eff. Oct. 1, 2011) and current section 4019, subdivisions (f) and (h).*fn2
The People do not dispute defendant's calculations, but assert, without citing any authority, that defendant's claim for additional presentence credit must be directed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). We are not persuaded.
The trial court has traditionally borne the responsibility for calculating presentence custody credits. Although the People argue that current section 2933, subdivision (e)(1) shifts this responsibility to CDCR, we reject the argument as unsupported.
The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to award defendant three additional days of conduct credit, for a total of 22 days of presentence custody credit (11 actual days and 11 conduct days), to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting the proper award of credits, and to provide a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to CDCR.
In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BLEASE , Acting P. J. MAURO , J.