P. v. Demontmollin CA3

Filed 8/7/13 P. v. Demontmollin CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (El Dorado) ----

THE PEOPLE, C072112

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. P10CRF0282)

v.

GREGORY SCOTT DEMONTMOLLIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Gregory Scott Demontmollin appeals from an order after judgment denying his motion to correct the abstract of judgment. This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).

In May 2011, following his no contest pleas, defendant was sentenced to state prison for a stipulated aggregate term of three years for second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), felony evading (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)) and a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court did not award any presentence custody credits. Probation reported that defendant was not entitled to credits because his time in custody was due to a parole violation (absconding).

1

In September 2012, defendant filed a motion and requested presentence custody credits, claiming his custody was related to the current offenses and that the parole violation was never fully adjudicated. He attached various documents, including the trial court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding that he was not entitled to dual credits in that “the records produced show that a warrant was issued for his arrest as a parolee at large and his subsequent violation was also based, at least in part, on that charge.” Defendant also attached a prison report, recounting the facts underlying the robbery and evading offenses as well as a charge of absconding parole supervision. The report reflects that after defendant successfully evaded the pursuing sheriff’s deputies on July 13, 2010, the deputies contacted defendant’s parole agent. After the parole agent was unable to contact defendant at his residence, the agent requested a warrant for defendant as a parolee at large. Defendant’s parole was suspended effective July 19, 2010. “His whereabouts were unknown until his arrest” on July 29, 2010.