People v. Baker CA4/1

Filed 5/23/25 P. v. Baker CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D084414

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE421524)

GARY LUMUNDI BAKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John M. Thompson, Judge. Reversed in part and remanded with instructions, and otherwise affirmed. Michael Reed, 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, Donald W. Ostertag and Robin Urbanski, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. After being held in presentence home detention, Gary Lumundi Baker pled guilty to committing a hit and run resulting in death (Veh. Code,

§ 20001, subd. (b)(2); count 1), unlawfully driving another’s vehicle without consent (§ 10851(a); count 2), receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496d; count 3), and dissuading a witness from testifying (§ 136.1(a)(1); count 4). The court sentenced him to a total term of five years and four months in prison and awarded 125 days of jailtime credit. When Baker’s counsel asked about presentence home detention custody credits, the trial court responded it would give Baker the credits requested by probation. On appeal, Baker contends he is entitled to both custody and conduct credits for his presentence home detention. The People concede as much. Resolving this matter by memorandum opinion (see generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847), we accept the People’s concession, reverse in part, and remand with instructions. In all other respects, we affirm. We review questions of legal principles de novo. (Fletcher v. Superior Court (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 386, 390-391.) Section 2900.5, subdivision (a) of the Penal Code states in relevant part: “[W]hen the defendant has been in custody . . . all days of custody of the defendant . . . credited to the period of confinement pursuant to Section 4019, and days served in home detention pursuant to Section . . . 1203.018, shall be credited upon his or her term of imprisonment.” Section 4019 allows individuals to earn conduct credits—specifically work performance and good behavior credits—under various circumstances. People v. Yanez (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 91, 93, concluded section 4019 applies to individuals held in presentence home detention. A defendant ordered to remain home for a specified period and comply with statutory requirements is in home detention. (§ 1203.018(d).) A defendant need not satisfy all the statutory requirements to be awarded credits for home detention, however, so long as the terms of the defendant’s