Error and/or relief
The trial court must correct the abstract of judgment to reflect that the court never imposed fines or fees other than restitution to the Victim’s Compensation Board, and must recalculate his actual custody credits.
First Holding:
The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect that the court waived the imposition of a restitution fine and the parole revocation fine and other fines and fees. [GARY NOTE: The court did not cite authority for correction of the abstract of judgment, but the law is clear that it has the authority to do so, and I have listed some authorities below.]
Authority:
People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387–388
People v. Gobert (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 676, 689
People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2
Second Holding:
As the People did not object in the court below, the People have forfeited the issue of the propriety of the trial court order waiving the restitution and other fines and fees.
Authority:
People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 303
Third Holding:
When a trial court resentences a defendant who is currently in custody, it must calculate and credit him with all actual days spent in custody (whether in jail or prison) up to that time, including time in custody after the original sentencing. [GARY NOTE: the court did not cite authority for remanding for the court to determine custody credits, but the law is clear, per the authorities I have set forth below.]
Authority:
PEN 2900.1
PEN 2900.5
People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37