People v. Moore CA3

Filed 7/12/24 P. v. Moore CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099398

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 21F1703, 21CP04, 21F1693) v.

JASON LEE MOORE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Jason Lee Moore asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We will remand for recalculation of credits and affirm in all other aspects.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June 2021, a jury found Moore guilty in case No. 21F1703 of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and transportation of methamphetamine for sale (id., § 11379, subd. (a)). The jury also found true that Moore had a prior strike conviction. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.)1 In case No. 21F1693, a jury found Moore guilty of misdemeanor vandalism. (§ 594, subd. (b)(2)(A).) Based on the guilty findings, the court sustained two petitions to revoke Moore’s postrelease community supervision in case No. 21CP04. (People v. Moore (Mar. 29, 2023, C094903) [nonpub. opn.] (Moore).) In September 2021, the trial court sentenced Moore to state prison for an aggregate term of six years. In case No. 21F1703, the court imposed six years for transporting methamphetamine for sale (the middle term of three years doubled due to the strike) and four years for possessing methamphetamine for sale (the middle term of two years doubled due to the strike) stayed pursuant to section 654. In selecting the transportation charge as the principal charge, the court noted that this charge had the greatest term of imprisonment. The court awarded 396 days of custody credits (198 days of actual time credits and 198 days of conduct credits). In case No. 21F1693, the court imposed 364 days concurrent, and in case No. 21CP04, the court gave Moore credit for time served and terminated the case. (Moore, supra, C094903.) On appeal, we remanded the matter to allow the trial court to consider whether to exercise its new discretion to choose which sentences to stay, pursuant to recent amendments to section 654 enacted by Assembly Bill No. 518 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 441, § 1). (Moore, supra, C094903.)