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. B 300910 (Su per. Ct. No. YA097954) (Los Angeles County)

Prolog ue : A Court of Appeal opinion is an explanation for a
decision. In most cases t he opinion should contain only the necessary facts and law to support the issue or issues to be decided. To aid the litiga nts, their attorneys, and the public, the opinion should be concise

, readable , and filed with reasonable dispatch

. Generally the opinion should not mi m ic law r eview
articles

. We hope to follow this model in what follows. After a negotiated plea agreemen t, 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 i n the commission of the offense ( id.

, § 12022, subd. (b) (1) )

. He was sentenced to an a ggregate prison term of 11 years.2 Valdes subsequently moved for correction of presentence custody cr edits 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 25 8 actual custody credit days.”
The trial court denied the motion.
V aldes

, the P eople, and we agree that Valdes’s 11

- year
sentence be red uced by one day. Valdes is entitled to 258 days
actual custody credit instead of 257 days. H is 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.” ( Ib id. ) “ ‘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.) T he day the defendant is arrested counts as a custody credit day no matter how many hours or
minut es the defe ndant 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 p resentence custody credits to 258 days, to increase the “total days” credit for presentence credit time to 296 days, and to amend and serve a

correcte d 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.
Xavie r Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie C. Brenan and Nathan Guttman, Deputy Attorney s General , for Plaintiff and Respondent.