People v. Phoenix
| Decision Date | 24 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | C069195 |
| Citation | 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 540,231 Cal.App.4th 1119 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ronald George PHOENIX, Defendant and Appellant. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
See 3 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Punishment, § 465.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Yolo County, Timothy L. Fall, Judge. Reversed with directions. (Super. Ct. No. 095501)
Patricia J. Ulibarri, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman, Raymond L. Brosterhous II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Ronald George Phoenix was convicted of crimes in Sacramento County and Yolo County. He was originally sentenced to prison in the Sacramento County case. The Yolo County trial court resentenced defendant on the Sacramento case and consolidated the sentences as required by Penal Code sections 669 and 1170.1, subdivision (a),1 and California Rules of Court, rule 4.452.2
Defendant's sole contention is that the Yolo County trial court erred when it refused to calculate custody credits in the Sacramento case for the time he spent in custody before he was sentenced on the Yolo County case. The People contend that Sacramento County should make the calculation.
We reverse and remand the matter to the Yolo County court to recalculate defendant's credits on both the Sacramento County and Yolo County cases.
The only document in the record that provides information concerning the Sacramento County case is the abstract of judgment from that case. The abstract shows that on December 10, 2008, defendant was sentenced in the Sacramento case to 32 months in prison for a conviction of grand theft with an admission of a prior strike. Defendant was awarded 12 days presentence credit (8 days actual, 4 days conduct) as of December 10, 2008. The abstract reads as if execution of sentence was stayed until February 24, 2009, but neither the abstract nor any other official document in the record reflects what occurred in the Sacramento County case on or after that date.
On October 26, 2009, defendant was not in custody on the Sacramento County case. On that day, he was arrested after he was caught shoplifting at a store in Yolo County and then released on bail. He appeared for arraignment on November 25, 2009, but failed to appear on the next scheduled date, December 18, 2009.
From state prison, defendant demanded a speedy trial on the Yolo County case in a section 1381 demand dated January 25, 2010.
On February 5, 2010, while defendant was serving his state prison sentence on the Sacramento case, the Yolo County trial court issued an order for defendant's removal from prison to address the charges in the Yolo case. On March 15, 2010, defendant appeared in the Yolo County trial court pursuant to the removal order.
On July 19, 2011, following over a year of competency proceedings during which defendant was still serving his Sacramento case sentence, defendant pled no contest to felony theft and admitted a prior strike conviction in the Yolo County case. The court set the matter for sentencing and ordered a probation report.
On August 16, 2011, the Yolo County trial court sentenced defendant in the Yolo County case and resentenced him in the Sacramento County case. Prior to sentencing, defense counsel indicated he was unsure whether defendant was entitled to conduct credit on his state prison sentence for the time he spent in state hospital regaining competency. The trial court replied, Defendant himself told the court, ” The court told defendant that his Sacramento attorney will provide the Yolo judgment to the Sacramento trial court, and followed up with,
The Yolo County trial court then imposed six years for the Yolo case (upper term of three years doubled because of the strike) and a consecutive term of 16 months for the Sacramento case (one-third the middle term of two years doubled because of the strike). The total aggregate sentence was seven years four months. The court awarded defendant 187 days of presentence custody (186 days actual, 1 conduct).4 For the Sacramento case, the Yolo County court reaffirmed the Sacramento County court's original award of 12 days for presentence custody credit, as reflected on the abstract of judgment on the Sacramento case.
On January 10, 2012, appointed appellate counsel filed a motion, pursuant to section 1237.1,5 in the Yolo County trial court seeking calculation of defendant's custody credits in the Sacramento case, noting that the sentence on that case became the subordinate term on defendant's consolidated sentence.6 In the written motion, appellate counsel suggested, “An amended probation report will likely be required to assist this Court in ascertaining the date Mr. Phoenix turned himself in or was arrested in the Sacramento case and began serving his original 32 month sentence.” Counsel also suggested a “prison packet” could be obtained to assist the court in determining the Sacramento case credits.7
During the February 14, 2012, hearing on the motion, counsel for defendant again suggested the probation department should be ordered to calculate the credits on the Sacramento County case. In a credit analysis filed by local defense counsel in support of the motion, counsel indicated that according to a “prison worksheet,” defendant arrived at the prison on January 12, 2010, and that defendant was given 13 days presentence credit as of that date, which “means that [defendant] was likely picked up on an arrest warrant for FTA'ing on the Sacto case on December 30, 2009....” 8
The Yolo County trial court refused to reconsider the issue of the Sacramento credits, stating that It appears that the trial court's ruling that it lacked jurisdiction is based on a letter to the court from the Yolo County Probation Department dated February 7, 2012, in which a probation officer wrote,
As for the credits on the Yolo County case, the trial court made adjustments to its original award of credits. It reduced the award to 181 days.
The central issue presented here is whether a trial court that imposes a consolidated sentence under sections 669 and 1170.1, subdivision (a), and rule 4.452, must calculate and award custody credits related to the earlier case when the sentence on the earlier case was originally imposed in another county. Neither side presented us with published opinions, statutes or rule provisions directly on point; nor are we aware of any.
Defendant contends the Yolo County trial court was required to recalculate his custody credits in the Sacramento County case once it restructured his sentence in that case and consolidated it with the Yolo County case. The Attorney General responds that “given the need for access to appropriate information and resources” the proper trial court to make this calculation “will always be the court in the county wherein a defendant was confined for that custodial period.” The Attorney General admits they have “been unable to find direct authority in support of its position....” We decline to establish that authority, and conclude the Attorney General's position is wrong.
This issue is resolved by looking to a combination of statutory provisions, rules of court and the decisional law related to the consolidation of sentences in multiple cases from the same county.
We begin with rule 4.452, which addresses sentencing under sections 669 and 1170.1.9 Rule 4.452 provides in pertinent part:
Section 2900.5, subdivision (a), provides in pertinent part: “In all felony ... convictions, ... when the defendant has been in custody, including, but not limited to, any time spent in a jail, ... hospital [or] prison, ... all days of custody of the defendant, ... shall be credited upon his or her term of imprisonment....” Section 2900.5, subdivision (d), provides in pertinent part: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial