Error and/or relief
At the resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the superior court awarded the incorrect number of days of credit.
Though the abstract of judgment lists the correct number of days, it does not correctly reflect the controlling oral pronouncement of judgment. The court must amend the final abstract of judgment after correcting the calculation of credit for time served.
First Holding:
At the conclusion of the resentencing hearing, the superior court awarded actual days that only reflected the number of actual days from the original sentencing date to the resentencing date. It did not include the number of days of original presentence actual credit. Additionally, the court did not indicate the original presentence local conduct credit.
On remand, the resentencing court must recalculate the actual time served to include the original presentence actual days in custody and the number of days in custody from the original sentencing to the resentencing.
The court must also indicate the presentence local conduct credit.
Authority:
People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29
Second Holding:
The most recent abstract of judgment reflects the original presentence credit, as well as the credit awarded at the resentencing. But the oral pronouncement controls when a discrepancy exists between it and the abstract of judgment. We direct the superior court to amend the final abstract of judgment upon correcting the errors we have described.
Authority:
People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237, 244
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]