1 

Filed 7/24/13 P. v. Hanoum CA1/5 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION FIVE 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, A136840 

 v. (Sonoma County 

 Super. Ct. No. SCR616432) 

NATHAN DANIEL HANOUM, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

______________________________________/ 

 While appellant Nathan Daniel Hanoum was on parole, the prosecution charged 

him with committing assault with force likely to commit great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 

245, subd. (a)(1))1

 and with inflicting corporal injury on Jane Doe (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) in 

case No. SCR616432. 

Appellant pleaded no contest to inflicting corporal injury (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) on 

the condition he serve 180 days in county jail and that probation terminate at the 

conclusion of his sentence. At the plea hearing, the court advised appellant his 180-day 

sentence would be completed on July 7, 2012, and probation would terminate that same 

day. The court set a hearing for July 6, 2012, to award appellant credit for time served; 

 

1

 Unless otherwise noted, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
2 

formal sentencing would occur on July 13, 2012, to enable the probation department to 

prepare a probation report before sentencing. 

 On July 6, 2012 — and pursuant to the previous court order — the court ordered 

appellant released from custody on July 7, 2012, and ordered him to return on July 13, 

2012, for sentencing. The parties agreed appellant’s sentence would be completed on 

July 7, 2012, before a probation report could be completed; the prosecutor informed the 

court that “[b]ecause of the domestic violence, we need the probation report, and he was 

to be back then [July 13, 2012] for the sentencing. And it leaves him about a week, with 

a Cruz2

 waiver, to make sure that nothing happens in between. Because if he has any 

new incidents happen, then all deals are off, and he could be sentenced to State Prison.” 

Appellant said he understood and agreed. On the day he was released, appellant’s parole 

hold ended. 

 After he was released from custody, appellant was charged with, among other 

things, misdemeanor battery on Doe (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)) in case No. SCR620077 and 

was to be arraigned on July 13, 2012. On July 13, 2012, appellant failed to appear for 

arraignment in case No. SCR620077 and sentencing on case No. SCR616432. The court 

issued a bench warrant and appellant was arrested on August 2, 2012. Parole placed a 

new hold on appellant and he received a 35-day parole violation. At an August 16, 2012 

hearing, the parties advised the court the prosecution was willing to dismiss case No. 

SCR620077 with a Harvey3 waiver and have it “sent back to the probation officer for a 

full report. Based on the Cruz violation, it will be an open plea.” The court ordered the 

probation department to prepare a report. 

 On October 15, 2012, the court sentenced appellant to four years in state prison for 

the violation of section 273.5, subdivision (a). The court awarded appellant 34 days of 

credits: 17 actual credits and 17 conduct credits. When the court calculated the credits, 

the following exchange occurred: 

 “THE COURT: Okay. Are the credits 74 actual, 74 conduct? 

 

2

 People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247, 1254. 

3

 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 758. 
3 

 “PROBATION OFFICER: I have 17 plus 17. 

 “THE COURT: I was looking at the file, and it says that he was arrested on 

8/2/2012. [¶] Was that on a parole hold? 

 “PROBATION OFFICER: That was on the parole hold. Should the Court run – 

 “THE COURT: So it’s 17 for this case then? 

 “PROBATION OFFICER: Yes. 

 “THE COURT: 17 starting – when are you coming in? Well, 17 days ago, that 

would be from – so the parole hold was up the end of September? 

 “[PROSECUTOR]: Yes. When he was released from custody, Your Honor, that 

was the day his parole hold had ended. 

 “THE COURT: But then when he absconded and failed to appear for sentencing, 

did he get another parole violation? 

 “PROBATION OFFICER: He did. He got 35 days. 

 “THE COURT: Okay. . . .” 

 Appellant timely appealed. Then he filed an ex parte motion pursuant to People v. 

Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954, 958 requesting the court correct his presentence 

credits. He argued he was entitled to 115 days of credit, not 34. He explained he spent 

75 days in county jail between his arrest on August 2, 2012, and sentencing on October 

15, 2012, and that with conduct credits, the total credit earned was 150. From 150, 

appellant subtracted 35 days (for the 35-day parole violation), entitling him to 115 days 

of credit. 

In a May 20, 2013 amended ruling, the court denied appellant’s Fares motion. It 

explained appellant was “not entitled to a total of 115 days of presentence credit, as that 

would result in an improper award of dual credits.” The court, however, awarded 

appellant 76 days of credit, comprised of 38 actual credits and 38 conduct credits.4

 The 

amended ruling attached the probation department’s credits calculation, which noted that 

 

4

 We augment the record to include the court’s May 10, 2013 initial ruling and May 

20, 2013 amended ruling on appellant’s Fares motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 

8.155(a)(1)(A).) 
4 

appellant was not entitled to dual credits pursuant to section 2900.5, subdivision (b), 

which provides, “For the purposes of this section, credit shall be given only where the 

custody to be credited is attributable to proceedings related to the same conduct for which 

the defendant has been convicted. Credit shall be given only once for a single period of 

custody attributable to multiple offenses for which a consecutive sentence is imposed.” 

DISCUSSION 

 We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel asked this court 

to conduct an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 

(Wende). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel listed two 

possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) “Did the trial court err in limiting the number of 

credits which appellant received?” and (2) “Was appellant entitled to the credits 

originally awarded to him which fulfilled his sentence on July 7, 2013, the date of his 

release and the date upon which his probation was supposed to terminate, or did his 

failure to appear for formal sentencing on July 13, 2012, in accordance with his Cruz 

waiver eliminate his right to claim those credits even though the parties had agreed 

service of those days would fulfill his sentence and end his probation?” 

Counsel informed appellant he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his 

own behalf, but appellant declined to do so. 

We have examined the record pursuant to Wende and considered the possible 

issues referred to by appointed counsel. We find no reasonably arguable appellate issue. 

Appellate counsel has competently represented appellant. 
5 

The judgment is affirmed. 

 _________________________ 

 Jones, P.J. 

We concur: 

_________________________ 

Simons, J. 

_________________________ 

Bruiniers, J.