People v. Murray CA3

Filed 1/27/25 P. v. Murray CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, C099789

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. STKCRFE20120010153, v. SF122358A)

DANIEL LEWIS MURRAY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Daniel Lewis Murray appeals from the trial court’s resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.1.1 He argues the court erred by failing to recalculate his actual custody credits upon resentencing. We agree. Defendant also identifies a clerical error in the abstract of judgment. We remand the matter for the

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

recalculation of defendant’s actual custody credits and the issuance of an amended abstract of judgment. We otherwise affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND The substantive facts underlying defendant’s convictions are not relevant to our disposition and are therefore not recounted here. In 2013, a jury found defendant guilty of first degree burglary (§ 459—count 1), making criminal threats (§ 422—count 2), and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)—count 3). The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 65 years to life in state prison, which included 25-year-to-life terms for counts 1 and 2, and three 5-year terms for prior serious felony convictions pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a).2 The court imposed, then stayed, a 25-year-to-life sentence on count 3. An amended abstract of judgment filed in 2014 reflected defendant accrued 321 days of actual custody credit. On appeal from the underlying judgment, a different panel of this court ordered stricken two separate prior serious felony conviction enhancements for which no sentence had been imposed. (People v. Murray (Apr. 28, 2015, C074990) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2021, the trial court received a letter from the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, recommending that the court recall defendant’s sentence and resentence defendant pursuant to former section 1170, subdivision (d)(1).3 In his