People v. Alvarez CA3

Filed 8/30/24 P. v. Alvarez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099867

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CR002912)

v.

ARTHUR ALVAREZ II,

Defendant and Appellant.

After defendant Arthur Alvarez II pleaded guilty to driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more, the trial court sentenced him to six years in state prison. On appeal, Alvarez contends that the court erred in refusing to give him custody credit and conduct credit for the time he spent before sentencing on home detention with electronic monitoring. The People concede the error, and we accept the concession. We remand the case to the trial court to award custody credit for the time Alvarez was on home detention before sentencing and to calculate and award conduct credit for the same period.

1

BACKGROUND On October 30, 2022, Alvarez was speeding on the freeway and weaving in and out of his lane. He was stopped by the California Highway Patrol and failed field sobriety tests. Chemical breath tests yielded results of 0.21 percent and 0.23 percent blood-alcohol content. On December 5, 2022, the People filed a criminal complaint charging Alvarez with driving under the influence (DUI) within 10 years of three prior DUI’s, driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more within 10 years of three prior DUI’s, and misdemeanor driving with a suspended license. As to the first two counts, the complaint alleged that Alvarez was driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.20 percent or more and that he had suffered a prior strike. On December 15, 2022, the trial court ordered Alvarez released on ankle and alcohol monitoring and under the supervision of the probation department. The court ordered Alvarez not to drive a car or consume alcohol. He was permitted to go directly to and from work but prohibited from otherwise leaving his residence without permission from the probation department. The court also ordered Alvarez to comply with any terms and conditions set by probation. Those terms and conditions included abiding by “all rules of the Electronic Monitoring Program and the Global Positioning System (GPS) Agreement”; allowing peace officers and other designated persons “warrantless access and search of [his] person, property, vehicle and residence at any time to verify [his] compliance with the program”; and remaining in his residence except when at work or otherwise authorized by a probation officer to leave. Alvarez signed a GPS monitoring agreement, which confirmed that he was “being placed on GPS in order to verify and monitor [his] compliance with the court[’]s orders and the terms and conditions of [his] own recognizance release.” The agreement further specified that any failure to comply with