Court Opinion

ID: 9905560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 18:04:34.310978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:44.838599
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/29/23 P. v. Sosa CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                    (San Joaquin)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C097770

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                        (Super. Ct. No.
                                                                                STKCRFECOD20220010256)
           v.

 JUAN JORGE CASTRO SOSA,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         The sole contentions here are incorrect calculation of presentence conduct credits
and trial counsel’s failure to object. The credits were ultimately calculated correctly, so
we affirm.
         In December 2022, defendant Juan Jorge Castro Sosa pled no contest to
transporting a controlled substance (fentanyl) for sale. The trial court sentenced
defendant to a three-year split term, where the first half would be served in local jail and
the remaining half would be stayed pending successful completion of probation. The

                                                             1
court awarded defendant 59 actual days of credit. The court did not award conduct
credits.
       Defendant contends the trial court erred in “failing to award [him] sufficient
custody credits,” and his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting. But there is no
error at this time to correct.
       This is because in July 2023, the trial court awarded defendant 58 days conduct
credit in response to a request by defendant’s appellate counsel. This conduct credit
calculation is correct. Defendant was arrested on October 17, 2022, and was sentenced
on December 14, 2022, for 59 days of actual credit. Under Penal Code section 4019, this
entitles defendant to 58 days of conduct credit. Given the error has been corrected,
defendant’s contentions of credit error and ineffective assistance of counsel are without
merit. (See People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009-1010 [defendant fails to establish
ineffective assistance where there is a lack of prejudice].)
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                   /s/
                                                  MESIWALA, J.

We concur:

 /s/
MAURO, Acting P. J.

 /s/
DUARTE, J.

                                              2