Error and/or relief
The final abstract of judgment does not accurately reflect the defendant’s custody credits. We remand the matter with instructions to modify the final abstract of judgment.
First Holding:
When a defendant is resentenced following an appellate sentence remand, the sentencing court must determine all actual time the defendant has already served and recalculate the defendant’s actual custody credits.
Authority:
People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29
Second Holding:
The court determined that the defendant was in custody for [period A, more than 240 days] from arrest to original sentencing, and [period B, more than 1,000 more days] between the sentencing and resentencing hearings. The two numbers should have been added together to arrive at the total credit for time served. The abstract, however, treated the two numbers separately, listing the larger number [period B] as actual days in custody and the smaller number [period A] as conduct credits instead of actual days in custody, resulting in a failure to reflect an additional [more than 35 days] of conduct credit on [period A]. We direct the court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment.
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 188 [appellate court may order modification of inaccuracies in abstract of judgment]
People v. Moore (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 783, 788 [modifying judgment to correct conduct credits]