Error and/or relief
Following the defendant’s resentencing, the abstract of judgment must be amended to reflect the additional days of credit for time served since the original sentence was imposed.
First Holding:
A sentencing court must award credits for all days in custody up to and including the day of sentencing. At resentencing, the trial court must calculate the actual time the defendant has already served and credit that time against the subsequent sentence.
Authority:
People v. Bravo (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 729, 735
People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23
Second Holding:
The abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects the trial court’s calculation of custody credits. The abstract of judgment must be amended to include an additional [more than 4,000 days] for the period the defendant remained in custody between his [after 2010] original sentencing and his [before 2025] resentencing.
[GARY NOTE: There was no authority indicated in the opinion for the correction of the abstract. The error is so obvious that it hardly seems necessary to provide authority. Nonetheless, there is authority the court could have cited. The appellate court may direct the trial court to correct clerical errors in an abstract of judgment. I have set forth some of the authorities the court could have cited.]Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070
People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855
In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385
People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2