Filed 8/21/20

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH ARI VALDES,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B300910

(Super. Ct. No. YA097954)

(Los Angeles County)

Prologue: A Court of Appeal opinion is an explanation for a 

decision. In most cases the opinion should contain only the 

necessary facts and law to support the issue or issues to be 

decided. To aid the litigants, their attorneys, and the public, the 

opinion should be concise, readable, and filed with reasonable 

dispatch. Generally the opinion should not mimic law review 

articles. We hope to follow this model in what follows.

After a negotiated plea agreement, Joseph Ari Valdes 

appeals a judgment following his conviction for second degree 

robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), with a finding that he used a deadly 

or dangerous weapon in the commission of the offense (id., 

§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). He was sentenced to an aggregate prison 

term of 11 years.
2

Valdes subsequently moved for correction of presentence 

custody credits and abstract of judgment. He claimed he was 

entitled to “an additional one (1) presentence credit day for a 

total of 296 presentence credit days.” Because his defense 

counsel miscalculated his actual presentence custody credits,

Valdes said he was “entitled to 258 actual custody credit days.” 

The trial court denied the motion. 

Valdes, the People, and we agree that Valdes’s 11-year 

sentence be reduced by one day. Valdes is entitled to 258 days 

actual custody credit instead of 257 days. His 38-day good 

time/work time credit entitles him to a total credit of 296 days 

instead of 295.

“A defendant is entitled to actual custody credit for ‘all days 

in custody’ in county jail and residential treatment facilities, 

including partial days.” (People v. Rajanayagam (2012) 211 

Cal.App.4th 42, 48.) “Calculation of custody credit begins on the 

day of arrest and continues through the day of sentencing.” 

(Ibid.) “ ‘The law takes no notice of fractions of a day. Any 

fraction of a day is deemed a day . . . .’ ” (People v. Smith (1989) 

211 Cal.App.3d 523, 526.) The day the defendant is arrested 

counts as a custody credit day no matter how many hours or 

minutes the defendant was in jail on that day. (Ibid.; 

Rajanayagam, at p. 48.) In such instances, arithmetic may be 

confounding.
3

DISPOSITION

The case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to 

correct the sentence finding on actual time served for presentence 

custody credits to 258 days, to increase the “total days” credit for 

presentence credit time to 296 days, and to amend and serve a 

corrected abstract of judgment. In all other respects, the 

judgment is affirmed. 

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.
4

Hector M. Guzman, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief 

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant 

Attorney General, Stephanie C. Brenan and Nathan Guttman, 

Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.