Error and/or relief
At the resentencing under section 1172.75, the court erred in failing to update the credit for time served. Remanded for the court to calculate the correct number of days and to correct the abstract of judgment that reflected the credit as of only the original sentence date.
First Holding:
The trial court incorrectly calculated his custody credit, and the abstract of judgment following the resentencing hearing does not reflect the actual days of custody credit as of the date of resentencing. We therefore remand the matter so the court may recalculate Smith’s actual days of custody credit and prepare an amended abstract of judgment.
Authority:
People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23
Second Holding:
(Gary note: The appellate court otherwise affirmed the sentence imposed on resentencing, but announced principles worthy of mention here, though they did not support any relief on appeal for this defendant.)
We review the trial court’s sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion. We interpret relevant statutes and review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo.
Authority:
People v. Moseley (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 870, 874
People v. Mayfield (1993) 5 Cal.4th 142, 199
People v. Terwilligar (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 585, 595