Court Opinion

ID: 9892119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-20 17:04:11.781029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:17:48.907024
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/20/23 P. v. Hodge 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                  B319222

     Plaintiff and Respondent,                               (Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct. No. MA077232)
                   v.

DAMIEN HODGE,

    Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County. Alan Z. Yudkowsky, Temporary Judge.
(Pursuant to Cal. Cons., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed as modified with
directions.
      John L. Staley, 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, Assistant
Attorney General, Kenneth C. Byrne and Allison H. Chung,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                        **********
      In 2019, a jury found defendant and appellant Damien
Hodge guilty of dissuading a witness (Pen. Code, § 136.1; count 2)
and of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily
injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 3) and acquitted him on one
count of injuring a spouse/girlfriend (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 1).
At the original sentencing hearing on February 11, 2020, the
court sentenced defendant to an eight-year prison term, awarding
183 days of presentence custody credits. While defendant’s direct
appeal was pending, the court corrected the award of presentence
custody credits to reflect a total of 304 days and prepared an
amended abstract of judgment.
      In 2021, we vacated defendant’s sentence and remanded
with directions to the trial court to hold a new trial on the prior
conviction allegation or obtain a knowing and voluntary waiver
and admission of the prior conviction from defendant in
accordance with applicable law; to correct the error in the
original sentencing minute order and abstract of judgment that
incorrectly stated the conviction on count 3 was a serious and
violent felony; and to hold a new sentencing hearing. We
affirmed the judgment of conviction in all other respects. (People
v. Hodge (July 7, 2021, B305189) [nonpub. opn.].)
      The remittitur issued September 8, 2021, and the
resentencing hearing was held February 25, 2022. Defendant
was present with counsel.
      Defendant admitted his prior strike conviction from 2005.
The court denied defendant’s renewed motion pursuant to People
v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. And, the court
ordered the original sentencing minute order corrected to reflect
that count 3 was not a serious or violent felony.

                                 2
       The court resentenced defendant to six years in prison,
calculated as follows: a three-year midterm on count 3, doubled
due to the prior strike conviction; and a concurrent three-year
midterm on count 2, doubled due to the prior strike. The court
awarded defendant total custody credits of 746 days.
       Defendant now appeals from the resentencing hearing
contending only that the trial court incorrectly calculated custody
credits. Both defendant and the People agree that defendant is
entitled to a further correction reflecting 1,049 days of custody
credits.
       We agree. It is undisputed defendant was arrested on
September 13, 2019, and remained in local custody until the date
of the original sentencing on February 11, 2020. Defendant was
entitled to an award of 304 days of presentence custody credits
for this time period (152 actual, 152 conduct). It is undisputed
defendant was then resentenced on February 25, 2022, and was
entitled to an award of 745 actual days (2020 was a leap year) for
this time period. Defendant is entitled to an award of total
custody credits in the amount of 1,049 days. (People v.
Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23-24; see also Pen. Code,
§§ 2900.1, 2900.5 & 4019.)
       The judgment shall be modified to so reflect. (People v.
Haskin (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1441 [where error in sentence
“does not require additional evidence, further fact finding, or
further exercise of discretion, the appellate court may modify the
judgment appropriately and affirm it as modified”].) On remand,
the trial court shall prepare an amended abstract of judgment to
reflect the correct amount of custody credits.

                                 3
                         DISPOSITION
      The judgment is modified to reflect the award of 1,049 total
days of custody credits. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
On remand, the superior court shall issue a new abstract of
judgment reflecting the modification and forward same to the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

                        GRIMES, Acting P. J.

      WE CONCUR:

                        WILEY, J.

                        VIRAMONTES, J.

                                4