People v. Draughn CA3

Filed 1/27/25 P. v. Draughn CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C100631

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23CR000733)

v.

DAVID BRENDON DRAUGHN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant David Brendon Draughn appeals after the trial court resentenced him to correct an unauthorized sentence. Defendant contends the trial court failed to: (1) impose a single aggregate sentence for both of his criminal cases at the resentencing hearing; and (2) properly award credit for time he had already served in custody. The People respond that the trial court: (1) properly imposed a single aggregate sentence, as evidenced by the abstract of judgment; and (2) subsequently corrected its error awarding credit for time served. We agree with the People that the trial court was in effect reinstating the previously imposed sentence that had been orally pronounced on the

1

record. But we conclude the trial court did not properly award credit for time defendant served in custody since the initial execution of his sentence. So we remand to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and otherwise affirm the judgment. Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code, and rule references are to the California Rules of Court. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant was serving a seven year four month sentence in the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) imposed in Kern County case No. BFI83810A when he grabbed a custodial officer and tried to take an object from the officer. Defendant then pled no contest in Tehama County case No. 23CR000733, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, to battery against a custodial officer engaged in the performance of his duties and admitted he had previously been convicted of a serious felony. The plea agreement called for the trial court to sentence defendant to 16 months (one year four months) in prison (calculated as follows: eight months, which was one- third the middle term sentence, doubled due to the prior serious felony conviction) to be served consecutively to his sentence in the Kern County case. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court, in accordance with the plea agreement, reimposed the seven year four month sentence for the prior case and sentenced defendant to a consecutive term of one year four months in prison for battery, for an aggregate sentence of eight years eight months in prison. CDCR then sent a letter to the trial court informing it that section 1170.1, subdivision (c) did not permit the court to impose one- third of the middle term sentence but rather required imposition of the full term. Accordingly, the court held a resentencing hearing. At the resentencing hearing, the parties agreed that the plea agreement could be modified to permit the trial court to strike the prior serious felony conviction and impose the low term sentence of 16 months in prison, which would match the previously agreed upon sentence and would comport with the law. Defendant initially objected to the