Court Opinion

ID: 9918358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 18:02:34.20732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:38.705646
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/12/24 P. v. Orozco CA2/6
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE,                                                  2d Crim. No. B327776
                                                          (Super. Ct. No. 2020014067)
     Plaintiff and Respondent,                                 (Ventura County)

v.

JOSE LUIS OROZCO,

     Defendant and Appellant.

       Jose Luis Orozco appeals from the order denying his
request for custody credits. He contends, and the Attorney
General concedes, the trial court erred when it denied credits for
the time he spent in a residential treatment program. We
reverse and order that Orozco receive an additional 259 days of
custody credits.
            FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       In October 2021, Orozco pleaded guilty to unlawfully
driving or taking a vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) The
trial court sentenced him to three years in state prison,
suspended execution of the sentence, and placed Orozco on two
years of formal probation with terms and conditions, including
that he serve 365 days in county jail.
       During sentencing, the prosecutor informed the court that
Orozco would enroll in a residential treatment program at the
Salvation Army’s facility in Santa Monica. The trial court
“ordered [Orozco] to be transported first to the probation
department and then to the Salvation Army Santa Monica
facility[,] where he [was] to remain in the program.” It also
ordered Orozco to “follow all [probation department] directions
regarding his place of employment, his place of residence, [and]
any treatment or . . . programs . . . they think . . . appropriate for
him while he’s on probation.”
       The trial court ordered Orozco to complete the Salvation
Army residential treatment program, and instructed him to
report to the probation department if he left the program so it
could figure out “what . . . to do next.” The court asked Orozco to
waive confidentiality: “The program at Salvation Army is
something that is usually private or confidential to you, but
because it has to with your release from custody and your
sentencing, you agree that the program may communicate with
the [c]ourt, if necessary, and the probation department, if
necessary, regarding your progress. Do you understand?” Orozco
said he did. The court granted him 261 days of custody and
conduct credits, and stayed the remainder of his jail sentence
pending completion of the program.
       In February 2023, defense counsel told the trial court that
Orozco had completed the Salvation Army program and was
requesting 259 days of additional custody credits for the period
December 1, 2021, to August 17, 2022. The court said it normally
told defendants who choose a residential treatment program that

                                  2
they would not receive custody credits. The court instructed the
parties to check the record: “[T]he transcript is what controls.”
       The trial court subsequently conceded it had not expressly
warned Orozco that he would not receive custody credits for time
spent in the residential treatment program. It nevertheless
denied the credits because enrolling in the program was not a
probation condition. After finding that Orozco violated probation,
the court imposed a three-year prison sentence. It awarded
Orozco 376 days of custody and conduct credits for the time spent
in county jail, but denied him custody credits for the time spent
at the Salvation Army.
                               DISCUSSION
       Orozco contends, and the Attorney General concedes, that
the trial court erred when it denied his request for custody
credits for the time spent in the Salvation Army’s residential
treatment program. We agree.
       “In all felony . . . convictions, either by plea or by verdict,
when the defendant has been in custody, including, but not
limited to, any time spent in a jail, camp, work furlough facility,
halfway house, rehabilitation facility, hospital, prison, juvenile
detention facility, or similar residential institution, all days of
custody of the defendant, including days served as a condition of
probation in compliance with a court order . . . shall be credited
upon [their] term of imprisonment.” (Pen. Code, § 2900.5, subd.
(a).) These provisions “apply to custodial time in a residential
treatment [program].” (People v. Jeffrey (2004) 33 Cal.4th 312,
318.) A defendant may waive their entitlement to such credits,
however, to ensure their success in the program. (Ibid.)
       Here, Orozco did not waive his entitlement to custody
credits while participating in the Salvation Army’s residential

                                  3
treatment program. And his participation in the program was a
condition of probation: The court ordered him to be transported
there, ordered him to follow its program directives, ordered him
to advise the probation department if he left, and required him to
waive confidentiality so the Salvation Army could communicate
with probation about his progress.
       The Attorney General agrees that participation in the
Salvation Army program was a condition of Orozco’s probation
and that Orozco did not waive entitlement to custody credits for
his time spent there. He nevertheless requests that we remand
the matter for the trial court to determine whether that time was
“custodial.” (See People v. Davis (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 771, 777
[placement must be “custodial” to entitle defendant to credits];
People v. Shabazz (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1258 [defendant
bears burden of showing entitlement to credits]; People v.
Ambrose (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1917, 1922 [whether placement
“custodial” a factual question for the trial court].) But when
Orozco first requested credits a representative from the Salvation
Army was present in the courtroom. Prosecutors chose not to
inquire into the conditions of their program. Nor did they choose
to do so at the subsequent hearing on Orozco’s request. We
accordingly reject the Attorney General’s remand request.
(People v. Davenport (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 240, 247.)
                           DISPOSITION
       The March 17, 2023, order denying Orozco’s request for
custody credits for the time spent in the Salvation Army’s
residential treatment program is reversed. The trial court is
ordered to award Orozco an additional 259 days of custody credits
for the time he spent there pursuant to Penal Code section
2900.5. The clerk of the superior court shall prepare an amended

                                4
abstract of judgment reflecting the additional credits and forward
a copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                    BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

             YEGAN, Acting P. J.

             CODY, J.

                                5
                  Patricia M. Murphy, Judge

               Superior Court County of Ventura

                ______________________________

      Claudia Y. Bautista, Public Defender, and Thomas
Hartnett, Deputy Public Defender, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and David A. Voet, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.