People v. Parnell CA2/1

Filed 8/28/24 P. v. Parnell CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B331647

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA077295) v.

RICKY PARNELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Tomson T. Ong, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Jason Szydlik, 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, Marc A. Kohm and Melanie Dorian, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 In 2008, the trial court sentenced appellant and defendant Ricky Parnell to an indeterminate life sentence, additional terms of imprisonment including some pursuant to enhancements, and various other terms including fines and fees. In 2022, after a change in the law, the trial court recalled Parnell’s sentence pursuant to Penal Code2 section 1172.75 and, in 2023, it resentenced him. Parnell now appeals from that resentencing. He argues, the Attorney General agrees, and we concur that the court made several errors that require correction. First, the court failed to calculate Parnell’s custody credits properly, instead calculating a portion in years and months instead of days, and directing the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to calculate the remainder. This was error. (§ 2900.5, subd. (d) [“It is the duty of the court imposing the sentence to determine the date or dates of any admission to, and release from, custody prior to sentencing and the total number of days to be credited pursuant to this section”].) The parties agree, and we concur, that Parnell is entitled to 5,603 actual days of custody credit and 30 presentence conduct days. Second, the court increased the restitution and parole revocation fines from the original amount of $7,200 to $10,000. The parties agree, and we concur, that penalizing Parnell in this manner for challenging his sentence violates the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. (People v. Hanson (2000) 23