People v. Thompson CA4/1

Filed 5/16/25 P. v. Thompson CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D084401

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD215338)

DANNY LAWRENCE THOMPSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David L. Berry, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with instructions. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Jon S. Tangonan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Following a full resentencing, Danny Lawrence Thompson appeals two aspects of his sentence: (1) the trial court’s deference to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to calculate custody credits up

to Thompson’s June 11, 2024 resentencing, and (2) after a change in law, the remaining balance of his restitution fine. The People concede error on both points. Resolving this matter by memorandum opinion (see generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847), we accept the People’s concessions and remand with instructions. In all other respects, we affirm. I. In 2009, Thompson was sentenced to a total of 40 years and four months in prison after pleading guilty to eight counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) with corresponding firearm enhancements (§ 12022.53(b)) and one count of residential burglary (§§ 459, 460). The trial court awarded Thompson a total of 278 days of custody credits. The court also imposed an $8,000 restitution fine under section 1202.4(b). Years later, after CDCR identified errors in Thompson’s sentence and following remand from this court (People v. Thompson (March 3, 2022, D078648) [nonpub. opn.]), the trial court conducted a new resentencing hearing. On June 11, 2024, the court reimposed the same total sentence of 40 years and four months but did not recalculate Thompson’s custody credits. The court recognized Thompson’s custody credits were “[o]bviously . . . significantly greater” yet stated it “is the purview and the jurisdiction of” CDCR “to calculate” those credits. II. Thompson raises two points on appeal. We address each in turn. A. First, Thompson argues the trial court “erred by failing to calculate” his “custody credit[s] up to the date of the resentencing” and seeks remand “with