Court Opinion

ID: 9899455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 19:03:45.94655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:29.282257
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/16/23 P. v. Burguan CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

                      SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                    DIVISION FIVE

 THE PEOPLE,                                                      B319150

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                               (Los Angeles County
                                                                  Super. Ct. No. KA113425)
          v.

 ANTHONY ANGEL BURGUAN,

          Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Mike Camacho, Judge. Affirmed.
      Eric R. Larson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill, Supervising Deputy
Attorney General, and Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorney General,
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
      A jury convicted defendant and appellant Anthony
Burguan (defendant) of special circumstance murder, attempted
murder, and attempted robbery. The jury also found true, among
other things, allegations that defendant committed the crimes for
the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a
criminal street gang. After trial but before sentencing, a new
statute concerning gang enhancements, Penal Code section 1109,
took effect.1 (Stats. 2021, ch. 699, § 5, eff. Jan. 1, 2022.) The
statute requires a court to bifurcate—upon a defendant’s
request—trial on a gang enhancement from trial of the
underlying offense(s). We are asked to decide whether reversal of
defendant’s convictions is required because section 1109 applies
retroactively to him.

                         I. BACKGROUND
       A.    The Murder
       On August 12, 2016, 17-year-old Christine Nguyen threw a
party in her mother’s backyard in West Covina. Though Nguyen
had permission to have only about 20 friends over, approximately
100 people attended. The party was advertised on social media,
and attendees paid a small entrance fee.
       Among the attendees were Christian Gallegos (Gallegos)
and his friends Jose Melendez (Melendez), the murder victim,
and Rigoberto Saldana (Saldana). Saldana and Melendez
brought a nitrous oxide (nox) tank with the intent of selling nox-
filled balloons to partygoers.

1
     Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the
Penal Code.

                                2
      Also at the party were defendant and Andrew Horcasitas
(Horcasitas). A handful of other attendees interacted with
defendant while he was there. Among them was Adrian
Contreras (Contreras), who recognized defendant from high
school and a local park. He and defendant exchanged greetings
when they passed. According to Contreras, defendant was
wearing all black, including a black hat with a yellow “P” on it (a
Pittsburgh Pirates hat).2
      Contreras later observed defendant walking away from the
party and asked if he was leaving already. Defendant responded
that he was going to be right back. When defendant returned, he
was wearing gloves and was accompanied by two other young
men.
      At some point after Gallegos, Saldana, and Melendez had
been at the party for about an hour, defendant approached
Gallegos and said he wanted the nox tank.3 Gallegos turned

2
       Nguyen did not recall what defendant was wearing when
testifying at his later criminal trial. At the preliminary hearing,
however, she similarly testified defendant was wearing all black,
including a black baseball cap.
3
       At defendant’s criminal trial, both Gallegos and Saldana
identified defendant as the individual who demanded the nox
tank. At the earlier preliminary hearing, however, Gallegos
testified the person who approached him was 5’ 3” and wearing a
white t-shirt and a blue LA hat. Another partygoer, Hector
Hernandez (Hernandez) was familiar with defendant from middle
school and observed him approach people selling nox balloons, an
apparent confrontation that ensued, and a point at which
defendant reached down and lifted up his shirt. Hernandez’s
description of defendant’s attire at the party also changed
between the preliminary hearing and trial, however.

                                 3
toward defendant and saw he had lifted up his waistband to
display a gun. Melendez tackled defendant and Saldana moved
to restrain defendant’s arms to prevent him from reaching the
gun. Horcasitas then approached Gallegos from behind and
shoved him; Gallegos shoved Horcasitas back and said he wasn’t
going to let Horcasitas through because defendant had a gun.
Horcasitas informed Gallegos he had a gun too, and pulled it
from his waistband.
       As Horcasitas approached, defendant yelled “blast these
fools” at least three times. After first firing a shot at the ground,
Horcasitas fired the gun at Gallegos but missed. Saldana, who
had been trying to get defendant’s gun away, stopped and turned
around. Horcasitas then shot Saldana in the stomach, and
Saldana fell to the ground. Melendez was still on the ground
wrestling with defendant, and Horcasitas shot Melendez in the
back. Defendant and Horcasitas then fled the scene.
       West Covina Police Officer Laurie Pruitt arrived at
Nguyen’s house in response to a call about a party with an
unknown disturbance. Officer Pruitt saw people running and
screaming, and someone told her a partygoer had been shot. On
her way to the home’s backyard, Officer Pruitt encountered
Saldana, who was holding his stomach and said he had been shot.
While other officers attended to Saldana, Officer Pruitt entered
the backyard and saw Melendez laying on the ground. He was in
pain, and kept repeating “I’m dying” as officers attempted to
assess and treat him.
       Melendez eventually stopped breathing and the coroner
later determined the cause of his death was the gunshot wound
he sustained to his back. Saldana underwent surgery and

                                 4
survived, but doctors were unable to remove the bullet in his
body because it was too close to his spine.

       B.    Additional Police Investigation
       In the days that followed, police officers continued their
investigation of the shooting and uncovered evidence of
defendant’s affiliation with the Puente 13 criminal street gang
(Puente 13). From the room where defendant was living, a
detective recovered a black Pittsburgh Pirates baseball cap, a
DVD case with “Puente D St Gang” written on it, and a piece of
paper inscribed with “Puente D” and “Gangster Loco.” Another
investigator reviewed the contents of defendant’s cell phone and
found his snapchat name was Gangster Loko. Defendant’s
Facebook page included photos of him making what appeared to
be a “P” gang sign with his hands and included an exchange
between him and another individual concerning the Duff Street
clique of Puente 13.
       The investigation also uncovered evidence regarding
Horcasitas. Horcasitas was affiliated with a Puente 13 clique
known as “Hurley.” His moniker was Enemy. Horcasitas had
two Facebook profiles, one of which included photos of him
displaying a “P” gang sign while wearing a “Hurley” shirt and a
Pittsburgh Pirates baseball cap.
       The police also obtained messages between defendant and
Jesus Mora, whose gang moniker was YG, that were sent the day
after the murder. Mora’s messages informed defendant, “You’re
good. You’re cool.” Investigators also uncovered messages
between defendant and another man sent about twelve hours
after the shooting; the other man asked defendant if he had
talked to “Enemy.”

                                5
       In September 2016, police arrested defendant in connection
with the shootings at Nguyen’s home. Horcasitas was arrested
the following April.
       Law enforcement officers monitored and recorded a
conversation an agent acting at the behest of the police had with
Horcasitas while he was held in custody. During the
conversation, Horcasitas discussed committing a murder and said
“I seen one . . . of them, then I seen the other one was still fucken,
I got him straight.” Horcasitas also said “they didn’t get at my
homie.” According to a transcription of the conversation, the
agent asked, “What it involves, fool?” and Horcasitas replied,
“Keep it gangster.” An investigator who listened to the
conversation both live and as recorded, however, testified he
believed the agent asked, “What do they call that fool?” and
Horcasitas replied, “Gangster.”
       Alexandria Tamayo, who was Horcasitas’ on-again-off-
again girlfriend, spoke to police officers in April 2017. During the
interview, Tamayo was initially reluctant to provide the officers
with any information. But she eventually admitted Horcasitas
told her he saw “Gangster” getting beat up at the party and he
shot two people to defend “Gangster” and himself.4

     C.    Charges and Trial
     In 2019, the People filed a criminal information against
defendant and Horcasitas. The information charged them with

4
      At defendant’s criminal trial, Tamayo testified she did not
remember the conversation she described to the police and she
maintained Horcasitas had not admitted anything about shooting
people at a party.

                                  6
one count of murder (as to Melendez) with an associated robbery-
murder special circumstance allegation; two counts of attempted
willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (as to Saldana and
Gallegos); and one count of attempted second degree robbery.
The information alleged all four counts were committed for the
benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal
street gang. It further alleged a principal used a firearm in the
commission of the murder and attempted murder counts.
       Prior to the commencement of trial, Horcasitas asked the
court to bifurcate the gang allegations, arguing in part that
defendants had tattoos at the time of trial they did not have
when the murder occurred and those tattoos had no bearing on
whether or not they were guilty of the crime. Defendant joined in
the request to bifurcate trial. The trial court denied the request,
stating it believed gang evidence was admissible on issues of guilt
as to the underlying offenses and the jury was entitled to
consider it.5
       During defendant’s trial, exhibits and testimony were
admitted concerning defendant’s gang membership and the gang-
relatedness of the charged offenses.
       The People introduced photographs of the tattoos defendant
had on his body at the time of trial.6 He had a tattoo of the word

5
     Horcasitas subsequently entered a plea, but he remained
unsentenced at the time trial commenced. Trial proceeded
against defendant alone.
6
      The People also introduced photographs of Horcasitas’
tattoos. At the time of his arrest, Horcasitas had two tattoos that
appeared to indicate affiliation with Puente 13. Close to the time

                                 7
“calle” on his wrist, a tattoo on the back of his hand that
appeared to depict someone holding a firearm, the letter “P” and
numbers “1” and “3” on the back of his head, a tattoo of the word
“Duff” on his arm, and a large tattoo of the word “Puente” on his
chest with skulls in the background.
       Detective Eric Saavedra with the Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department testified as a gang expert. He summarized
his experience with Puente 13 and described the structure of the
gang, its history, geographical territory, rivals, and hierarchy.7
He stated cliques within the gang, such as the Hurley clique and
the Duff clique, are based on more specific geographic areas and
members of different cliques routinely commit crimes together.
He also explained Hispanic gangs like Puente 13 have “big
homies,” usually Mexican Mafia members in state prison, who
are in charge of geographical areas. A younger gang member
who obtains money is required to give a third of the proceeds to
the big homie, a third of the proceeds to the gang, and may keep
the final third.
       Detective Saavedra testified that individual Puente 13
gang members advance within the gang hierarchy by “put[ting]
in work” for the gang by doing things like committing robberies,
thefts, or shootings. He described the importance of respect for
the gang, and opined Puente 13’s primary activities are stealing
vehicles, carjackings, selling narcotics, assaults, robberies, and
murders.

of trial, Horcasitas had additional tattoos apparently indicating
the same.
7
      Defendant stipulated Puente 13 is a criminal street gang
within the meaning of section 186.22.

                                 8
       Detective Saavedra also testified about attire, signs, and
tattoos related to Puente 13. He opined items found in
defendant’s room, including the Pittsburgh Pirates cap and the
paper with writing on it, indicated allegiance to Puente 13. He
also testified that Gangster Loko was a gang moniker. Regarding
gang signs, Detective Saavedra testified that if a non-gang
member were to “throw” gang signs, they would be confronted by
the gang. Detective Saavedra further testified that if defendant
posted the photos of himself displaying gang signs on social
media without being a gang member, he would be shot.
       Addressing defendant’s tattoos, Detective Saavedra
testified that in order to get a tattoo like the P13 on the back of
defendant’s head, one would have to be a Puente 13 gang member
who put in substantial work, like robbery or assault. Gang
members usually get big “stamps” like that through a violent act.
A tattoo like the firearm on the back of defendant’s hand would
be earned by committing a violent act involving a firearm. A Duff
street tattoo would be earned by putting in low-level work like
narcotic sales, stealing cars, or selling nox balloons. The large
Puente tattoo across the chest with skulls in the background
would be earned by committing a violent act, such as assisting
with a murder. If a gang member got such a tattoo without
earning it, Detective Saavedra believed the member would be
assaulted or killed.
       The prosecutor also presented Detective Saavedra with two
hypotheticals based on the facts of the case.
       First, he asked Detective Saavedra to assume a Puente 13
gang member stole a nox tank in a robbery and asked the
detective what the gang member would have to do to follow the
gang’s rules. Detective Saavedra responded the gang member

                                9
would have to fill and sell nox balloons, then give a third of the
proceeds to the big homie, a third of the proceeds to the gang, and
then keep a third for himself. Detective Saavedra stated there
would be severe consequences for not obeying the rule.
      Second, the prosecutor gave Detective Saavedra a
hypothetical tracking the evidence introduced at trial and
Detective Saavedra opined the shootings and attempted robbery
were committed in association with Puente 13, for the benefit of
the gang (both by bolstering the gang’s reputation and by
potentially making money from taking the nox tank), and at the
direction of Puente 13 (at least as to the shootings). Detective
Saavedra explained a hypothetical gang member who saw his
fellow gang member getting beaten, was told to blast the
attackers, and who did not aid the fellow gang member, would be
viewed as a coward and would face retribution within the gang.
      After the presentation of evidence, the jury was instructed
with CALCRIM No. 1403 as follows: “You may consider evidence
of gang activity only for the limited purpose of deciding
whether . . .[t]he defendant acted with the intent, purpose, and
knowledge that are required to prove the gang-related crimes and
enhancements charged; [t]he defendant had a motive to commit
the crimes charged; [t]he defendant was the perpetrator of the
crimes charged; OR . . . witness testimony is credible. [¶] You
may not consider this evidence for any other purpose. You may
not conclude from this evidence that the defendant is a person of
bad character or that he has a disposition to commit crime.”
      The jury deliberated and found defendant guilty on all
counts. The jury found all four offenses were committed for the
benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal

                                10
street gang. The jury additionally found true the charged firearm
enhancements.

       D.     Motion for New Trial and Sentencing
       In February 2022, prior to sentencing, defendant filed a
motion for new trial arguing in pertinent part that enactment of
section 1109 and amendments to section 186.22 made by
Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 333)
applied retroactively and warranted reversal of defendant’s
convictions and the associated gang allegations. Defendant
argued that under the newly enacted section 1109, he would have
been entitled to a bifurcated trial on the gang allegations, that
the introduction of the gang evidence during his trial was
extremely prejudicial, and that the trial court should grant him a
new trial on the substantive charges. He further argued
amendments to section 186.22 rendered the evidence presented
at trial insufficient to support the gang enhancement true
findings.
       The trial court heard argument on defendant’s motion for
new trial just prior to sentencing. The court agreed the changes
in law applied to defendant because his case was not final.
Because Assembly Bill 333 added elements to the enhancement
that the jury had not considered, the trial court vacated and set
aside the jury’s gang enhancement true findings and the
“principal armed” firearm enhancements that depended on the
viability of the gang enhancements findings.8 The court

8
     The court stated its ruling permitted the People an
opportunity to request a separate trial to proceed on the gang

                                11
otherwise denied the motion for new trial, including the request
to vacate his convictions because trial on the gang enhancements
had not been bifurcated. The court explained that even if a gang
enhancement is bifurcated, that doesn’t necessarily mean that
gang evidence is inadmissible at the guilt phase on the
substantive offenses because the evidence could come in for other
reasons, including identity.
       Proceeding to sentencing, the court imposed a sentence of
25 years to life for the murder conviction, noting that it was
selecting this alternative penalty (§ 190.5, subd. (b)) based on
defendant’s age (16) at the time of the crime, the fact that he was
not the actual killer, and a psychological evaluation submitted to
the court. As to the convictions for the attempted murders of
Saldana and Gallegos, the court imposed consecutive sentences of
life in prison with a minimum eligible parole date of seven years.
On the final attempted robbery conviction, the court imposed a
two-year sentence, which it stayed pursuant to section 654. The
aggregate sentence, as described by the court, was accordingly 39
years to life in prison. The court accepted the defense calculation
of 2,002 days of custody credit.

                          II. DISCUSSION
      We will assume for argument’s sake that section 1109
applies to defendant retroactively because, even with that
assumption, there is still no prejudice warranting reversal. Our
Supreme Court in People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169 held
that a decision not to bifurcate trial of a gang enhancement was

enhancement allegations if they wished to do so. The People
elected not to request a retrial.

                                12
harmless notwithstanding section 1109 because the evidence of
guilt was strong and the defendant relied only on “describing the
general risk of prejudice that may result from the admission of
gang evidence” rather than explaining how the exclusion of gang
evidence would have been reasonably likely to change the jury’s
guilty verdict on the underlying murder charge. (Id. at 1209-
1210.) Analogously here, the gang evidence admitted at
defendant’s trial did not render it fundamentally unfair, the
majority of the gang evidence admitted was relevant to the
substantive charges, the evidence that would have been excluded
at a bifurcated trial was not of a kind that would have inflamed
the passions of the jury, and the other evidence of guilt on the
substantive charges was strong. We will therefore affirm the
judgment, albeit with a minor modification to make an
uncontested correction to defendant’s custody credits.

     A.      Refusing to Bifurcate Trial of the Gang Enhancement
             Allegations Did Not Prejudice Defendant
       Section 1109 requires a trial court, upon a defendant’s
request, to order that the crimes charged against him be tried
separately from an alleged gang enhancement. (§ 1109, subd.
(a).) As mentioned, we assume the provision applies retroactively
to defendant and it was accordingly error not to grant his
bifurcation request.
       The trial court’s denial of the defense request for
bifurcation did not cause fundamental unfairness such that the
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 standard of assessing
prejudice would apply, however. (Tran, supra, 13 Cal.5th at
1209.) The prosecution did not rely solely or even primarily on
gang evidence to prove defendant’s guilt. Rather, the prosecution

                               13
chiefly relied on testimony from partygoers and the two
attempted murder victims who identified defendant as present at
the party and as the person who demanded the nox tank just
before the shootings. The prosecution also relied on Tamayo’s
statement to police recounting Horcasitas’ admission and
Horcasitas’ statements to the police agent while held in custody.9
The evidence of guilt here is comparable to that in Tran (id. at
1209 [trial not fundamentally unfair where prosecutor relied on
“testimony and prior statements of a few key witnesses”]), and
the state law standard for evaluating prejudice accordingly
applies (ibid.).
      To determine whether any error in the admission of
evidence was prejudicial under that standard, we consider
whether bifurcation “would have been reasonably likely to change
the jury’s verdict of guilt as to the underlying [offenses].” (Tran,
supra, 13 Cal.5th at 1209.) We conclude it was not so likely for
several reasons.
      First, “[t]he case for guilt here was strong.” (Tran, supra,
13 Cal.5th at 1209-1210.) Gallegos, Saldana, and Hernandez
(who was previously acquainted with defendant) identified
defendant as the individual who first approached the three
victims and demanded the nox tank. Gallegos and Saldana also
identified defendant as the individual who told Horcasitas to
“blast these fools.” Nguyen and Contreras’s testimony
corroborated defendant’s presence at the party. Tamayo’s prior
conversation with the police, during which she related
Horcasitas’ statement that he shot two people to protect

9
      Defendant does not challenge use of the statements to the
police agent as evidence against him.

                                14
“Gangster” (defendant’s moniker) also bolstered the proof that
defendant was Horcasitas’ accomplice.
        Defendant, however, protests there was good evidence of
mistaken identity and points to the differences between the
various witness accounts of defendant’s attire on the night of the
murder. Defendant also highlights variances between Gallegos’
physical description of defendant at the preliminary hearing and
defendant’s undisputed physical appearance. The discrepancies
in the testimony regarding defendant’s appearance and attire do
not, however, materially undermine the testimony from the three
witnesses to the altercation—Gallegos, Saldana, and
Hernandez—all of whom unequivocally identified defendant at
trial.10 Under the circumstances, we do not think exclusion of the
testimony bearing on the gang enhancement would have
materially impacted defendant’s mistaken identity theory.
        Second, nothing in Assembly Bill 333 limits the
introduction of gang evidence in a bifurcated proceeding where
the gang evidence is relevant to the underlying charges. Much of
the gang-related evidence admitted during defendant’s trial
would have been admitted anyway even if adjudication of the
gang enhancement had been bifurcated. (Tran, supra, 13 Cal.5th
at 1208 [“gang evidence, even if not admitted to prove a gang
enhancement, may still be relevant and admissible to prove other
facts related to a crime”]; People v. Ramos (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th

10
      This is particularly true since Gallegos and Hernandez’s
preliminary hearing descriptions of defendant’s attire are
generally consistent with each other, even if not consistent with
Contreras’s and Nguyen’s descriptions. Defendant also did not
impeach Saldana’s trial testimony with any preliminary hearing
inconsistent statements.

                                15
1116, 1132 [“nothing in Assembly Bill 333 limits the introduction
of gang evidence in a bifurcated proceeding where the gang
evidence is relevant to the underlying charges”]; see also People v.
Hernandez (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1040, 1049 [“[E]vidence of gang
membership is potentially prejudicial and should not be admitted
if its probative value is minimal. [Citation.] But evidence of
gang membership is often relevant to, and admissible regarding,
the charged offense. Evidence of the defendant’s gang
affiliation—including evidence of the gang’s territory,
membership, signs, symbols, beliefs and practices, criminal
enterprises, rivalries, and the like—can help prove identity,
motive, modus operandi, specific intent, means of applying force
or fear, or other issues pertinent to guilt of the charged crime”].)
        As defendant admits, his gang moniker and his association
with Horcasitas through the gang would have been admissible in
a bifurcated trial. But contrary to his claim that very little, if
any, other evidence was relevant to the charged substantive
offenses, much of it was. Consider just a few examples. Evidence
that members of different cliques routinely commit crimes
together was relevant to defendant’s intent, namely his
understanding that if he ordered Horcasitas to “blast” the
victims, Horcasitas would shoot them. Evidence related to the
financial structure of the gang was relevant to the motive for
defendant’s attempt to obtain the nox tank and his reason for
instigating the altercation that led to the murder. Evidence of
his gang membership, including at least some of the photos in
which he was displaying gang signs, was relevant to establishing
his motive for committing the crimes and his identity as one of
the two felony murderers. (See, e.g., People v. Duong (2020) 10
Cal.5th 36, 64 [court did not prejudicially err in admitting gang

                                16
evidence where “there was little question that evidence of
defendant’s gang membership was relevant to motive” and “gang
affiliation evidence gave context to the shooting”].) Evidence
regarding at least some of defendant’s gang tattoos, their
significance, and the repercussions for obtaining tattoos one had
not earned were all relevant to defendant’s motive and
consciousness of guilt. (People v. Ochoa (2001) 26 Cal.4th 398,
438 [“187” tattooed on defendant’s forehead manifested
consciousness of guilt].) Evidence regarding gangs’ treatment of
“snitches” was relevant to Tamayo’s credibility, given that her
statement at trial conflicted with her prior statements to police
officers. (People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1148,
1168-1169 [gang evidence may be relevant to witnesses’
reluctance to testify and inconsistent statements].)
       That is not to say, of course, that the entirety of the gang
evidence presented would have been admitted in a bifurcated
trial. The testimony regarding Puente 13’s active “war” with
rival Blackwood, for instance, had little bearing on proof of the
murder, attempted murder, and attempted robbery offenses. But
the evidence that likely would have been excluded at a bifurcated
trial as irrelevant was for the same reason minimally impactful.
Evidence of the conflict with Blackwood or evidence of predicate
offenses for the gang enhancement statute was no more graphic
or inflammatory than the evidence admissible on the substantive
offenses. And any danger from presentation of marginally
inadmissible gang evidence was further mitigated by the limiting
instruction the trial court gave, which enumerated the specific
reasons gang evidence could be considered and prohibited the
jury from considering the gang evidence for any other purpose or

                                17
from using the evidence to conclude “defendant is a person of bad
character” or had “a disposition to commit crime.”
       We therefore conclude it is not reasonably likely the failure
to bifurcate trial of the gang enhancements affected the jury’s
guilty verdicts and any error was accordingly harmless.

      B.     Defendant Is Entitled to One Additional Day of
             Presentence Credit
       Defendant argues that he is entitled to 2,003 days of
presentence credit rather than the 2,002 days he was awarded at
sentencing. Defendant is correct that, when both the arrest date
and sentencing date are included, there are 2,003 days between
his September 1, 2016, arrest and his February 24, 2022,
sentencing hearing. The Attorney General concedes he should
have been awarded the additional day, and we agree. (People v.
Rajanayagam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 42, 48 [a defendant is
entitled to all days, including partial days, of custody in county
jail and residential treatment facilities from the day of the arrest
to and including the day of sentencing].) We will modify the
judgment accordingly.

                                 18
                          DISPOSITION
      The judgment is modified to reflect that defendant has
2,003 days of presentence custody credits. The trial court is
directed to forward an amended abstract of judgment reflecting
this modification to the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                          BAKER, J.

We concur:

     RUBIN, P. J.

     KIM, J.

                               19