Court Opinion

ID: 9954201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 20:03:18.56528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:52.937336
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/25/24 P. v. Ramos CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

 THE PEOPLE,                                                   B325519

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                           (Los Angeles County
                                                               Super. Ct. No. VA101428)
           v.

 VICTOR RAMOS,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County. Roger Ito, Judge. Reversed and Remanded.

     Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan S. Pithey, Assistant Attorney
General, Noah P. Hill and Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorneys
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                  _____________________________
       Appellant Victor Ramos pled no contest to carjacking under
Penal Code section 215, subd. (a). 1 After he petitioned for
resentencing, Ramos argues that the superior court made errors
in his amended abstract of judgment. We agree. Accordingly,
we reverse and remand so that the court may correct the new
sentencing date, recalculate presentence conduct credit, and
recalculate custody time up to the resentencing hearing.
                         BACKGROUND
       After Ramos was arrested on June 24, 2007, the
Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office charged him with
carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a)), first degree robbery of a transit
operator (§ 211), and possession of a firearm by a felon with four
prior convictions (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)). The Los Angeles District
Attorney alleged a firearm enhancement under the carjacking
and first degree robbery of a transit operator charges.
(§ 12022.53, subd. (b).) The Los Angeles District Attorney further
alleged Ramos suffered a prior strike and served four prior prison
terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).)
       On November 2, 2007, Ramos was arrested again for
concealing a razor blade while being transported from jail to a
court hearing for the June 24, 2007 related charges. The Los
Angeles District Attorney charged him for possession of a weapon
by an inmate. (§ 4502, subd. (a).)
       On April 30, 2008, Ramos pled no contest to carjacking and
admitted to allegations for the underlying firearm enhancement.
Ramos further admitted to allegations of a prior strike and three
prior prison terms.

1     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise noted.

                                2
       On May 19, 2008, the trial court sentenced Ramos to
19 years in prison. The trial court awarded Ramos 298 days of
presentence custody credit, which included 199 days of actual
custody credit plus 99 days of local conduct credit. The trial court
did not indicate whether Ramos received conduct credits under
section 2933 or section 4019.
       On August 22, 2022, Ramos filed a petition for resentencing
asking the court to strike his three prior prison term
enhancements under section 1171.1. On September 28, 2022, the
resentencing court struck the prior prison term enhancement.
The court resentenced Ramos to the same sentence of 19 years by
imposing the upper term of nine years in addition to ten years for
a firearm enhancement.
       On October 6, 2022, the resentencing court issued a new
abstract of judgment that showed 5,387 days of actual custody
time and zero days of local conduct credit. The abstract of
judgment also incorrectly showed the resentencing date as
May 19, 2008, the date of the original sentencing. The court then
asked defense counsel to provide it with Ramos’s presentence
custody time after defense counsel determined the date of
Ramos’s original remand. Defense counsel then informed the
court that Ramos served 5,387 days of actual custody time.
       Ramos filed a notice of appeal.
       On March 30, 2023, Ramos’s appellate counsel moved ex
parte in trial court to amend the abstract of judgment and correct
Ramos’s presentence custody credit. Thereafter, the superior
court issued a minute order referring the matter to Ramos’s trial
attorney for review. In April 2023, Ramos’s trial counsel
informed his appellate counsel that he would not be responding

                                 3
to the superior court on the matter. The superior court has not
ruled on Ramos’s motion.
                            DISCUSSION
       Ramos argues that the amended abstract of judgment is
incorrect because it shows 5,387 days of actual custody credit and
zero days of local conduct credit. Ramos further contends that
the sentencing date on the amended abstract of judgment must
reflect the resentencing date rather than the original sentencing
date. The Attorney General agrees, but requests that the matter
be remanded for the court to recalculate the correct number of
credits. We agree that remand is appropriate so that the court
can recalculate actual custody credits and local conduct credits.
       When a defendant is resentenced, “the sentencing court
must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all
actual time the defendant has already served, whether in jail or
prison, and whether before or since he was originally committed
and delivered to prison custody.” (People v. Buckhalter (2001)
26 Cal.4th 20, 29 (Buckhalter).) “[T]he trial court [commits
reversible error when it does] not update defendant’s credits for
actual time served between the original sentencing hearing and
the resentencing hearing.” (People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th
657, 673 (Sek).) An incorrect award of custody credits is an
unauthorized sentence that we may correct on appeal. (People v.
Taylor (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 628, 647.)
       First, the abstract of judgment should be corrected to
reflect the September 28, 2022 resentencing date instead of the
incorrect date of May 18, 2008. (See Buckhalter, supra,
26 Cal.4th at p. 29; People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185–
187.)
       Second, the 5,387 days of custody credit was based on the
incorrect arrest date of November 2, 2007. As such, the lower

                                 4
court failed to correctly calculate Ramos’s time served. (See Sek,
supra, 74 Cal.App.5th at p. 673.) Based on the correct arrest date
of June 24, 2007, actual custody time to and including the
resentencing date is 5,576 days.
       However, it is unclear if Ramos was serving presentence
custody time from November 2, 2007 to the original sentencing
date for the more recent felon in possession of a weapon charge or
for the current case. “[C]redit shall be given only where the
custody to be credited is attributable to proceedings related to the
same conduct for which the defendant has been convicted.”
(Pen. Code, § 2900.5, subd. (b); see In re Marquez (2003)
30 Cal.4th 14, 20–21.) Remand is appropriate for recalculation of
presentence custody credits when it “involves factual
determinations more properly resolved” in the trial court (People
v. Kennedy (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 385, 394.) The trial court is
best suited to determine when defendant was serving time
attributable to the current offense. (Ibid.; People v. Torres (2012)
212 Cal.App.4th 440, 447.) Accordingly, we remand to the trial
court to determine when defendant was serving time attributable
to this offense and to adjust his presentence custody credits
accordingly.
       Third, the court must then calculate local conduct credits
for the period before the original sentencing hearing.
(Buckhalter, supra, 26 Cal.4th. at p. 30.) The Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation calculates and applies conduct
credit for time following the original sentencing hearing. (Id. at
pp. 30–31, 37.) Section 2933.1, subdivision (c), mandates that
“the maximum credit that may be earned against a period of
confinement in, or commitment to, a county jail . . . following
arrest and prior to placement in the custody of the Director of

                                 5
Corrections, shall not exceed 15 percent of the actual period of
confinement” for a person convicted of a violent felony.
Carjacking is a violent felony under section 2933.1, subdivision
(a). It is unclear whether the original sentencing court calculated
99 days of local conduct credit under section 2933.1, as required.
Further, given that it is unclear when Ramos was serving time
attributable to the current offense, remand is appropriate so that
the court may recalculate the local conduct credits between the
date of Ramos’s arrest for this case and his original sentencing
date. Accordingly, we reverse and remand so that the court may
conduct these calculations.
                           DISPOSITION
       We remand to the court with directions to correct the
amended abstract of judgment to reflect the correct date of the
resentencing hearing and to recalculate Ramos’s custody credits.
The recalculation should include all time served since Ramos’s
initial incarceration, including presentence jail credits and
credits earned while incarcerated in prison prior to and through
the resentencing date. We also direct the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation to calculate Ramos’s conduct
credit for time served following the original sentencing date.

                                          VIRAMONTES, J.
      WE CONCUR:

                        GRIMES, Acting P. J.

                        WILEY, J.

                                 6