P. v. Hanoum CA1/5

Filed 7/24/13 P. v. Hanoum CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, A136840

v. (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR616432) NATHAN DANIEL HANOUM,

Defendant and Appellant. ______________________________________/

While appellant Nathan Daniel Hanoum was on parole, the prosecution charged him with committing assault with force likely to commit great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1))1 and with inflicting corporal injury on Jane Doe (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) in case No. SCR616432. Appellant pleaded no contest to inflicting corporal injury (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) on the condition he serve 180 days in county jail and that probation terminate at the conclusion of his sentence. At the plea hearing, the court advised appellant his 180-day sentence would be completed on July 7, 2012, and probation would terminate that same day. The court set a hearing for July 6, 2012, to award appellant credit for time served;

1 Unless otherwise noted, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1

formal sentencing would occur on July 13, 2012, to enable the probation department to prepare a probation report before sentencing. On July 6, 2012 — and pursuant to the previous court order — the court ordered appellant released from custody on July 7, 2012, and ordered him to return on July 13, 2012, for sentencing. The parties agreed appellant’s sentence would be completed on July 7, 2012, before a probation report could be completed; the prosecutor informed the court that “[b]ecause of the domestic violence, we need the probation report, and he was to be back then [July 13, 2012] for the sentencing. And it leaves him about a week, with a Cruz2 waiver, to make sure that nothing happens in between. Because if he has any new incidents happen, then all deals are off, and he could be sentenced to State Prison.” Appellant said he understood and agreed. On the day he was released, appellant’s parole hold ended. After he was released from custody, appellant was charged with, among other things, misdemeanor battery on Doe (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)) in case No. SCR620077 and was to be arraigned on July 13, 2012. On July 13, 2012, appellant failed to appear for arraignment in case No. SCR620077 and sentencing on case No. SCR616432. The court issued a bench warrant and appellant was arrested on August 2, 2012. Parole placed a new hold on appellant and he received a 35-day parole violation. At an August 16, 2012 hearing, the parties advised the court the prosecution was willing to dismiss case No. SCR620077 with a Harvey3 waiver and have it “sent back to the probation officer for a full report. Based on the Cruz violation, it will be an open plea.” The court ordered the probation department to prepare a report. On October 15, 2012, the court sentenced appellant to four years in state prison for the violation of section 273.5, subdivision (a). The court awarded appellant 34 days of credits: 17 actual credits and 17 conduct credits. When the court calculated the credits, the following exchange occurred: “THE COURT: Okay. Are the credits 74 actual, 74 conduct?