People v. Vasquez CA5

Filed 5/5/25 P. v. Vasquez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F086742 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF154379A) v.

TONY VASQUEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Charles R. Brehmer, Judge. Scott Concklin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Lewis A. Martinez and Amanda D. Cary, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Meehan, J.

INTRODUCTION Defendant Tony Vasquez appeals from a judgment entered following resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1172.75. He contends the abstract of judgment must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement of judgment, inasmuch as the abstract (1) does not reflect the court’s oral pronouncement to convert all fines and fees to concurrent time, (2) improperly imposes, in a companion probation violation case, fines and fees that were not imposed at the oral pronouncement of judgment, and (3) fails to include updated actual time credits served in the companion probation violation case. The People concede remand is appropriate because the court failed to calculate actual time credits in the companion case. Defendant does not object to this remedy. We vacate the sentence and remand for further sentencing proceedings consistent with this opinion. BACKGROUND2 In 2015, a jury convicted defendant of first degree premeditated murder (§ 187, subd. (a); count 1), attempted premeditated murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664; count 2), two counts of discharging a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle (§ 246; counts 3 & 5), being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 4), and criminal threats (§ 422; count 9).3 The jury found true a special circumstance allegation to count 1, firearm enhancements to counts 1 through 5, and a great bodily injury enhancement to count 2. In bifurcated proceedings, the court found true a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (c)–(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(e)), a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd.