California Court of Appeal Nov 20, 2025 No. E085732Unpublished
Filed 11/20/25 P. v. Martinez CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E085732
v. (Super.Ct.No. FBA009327)
HUGO MARTINEZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Enrique Guerrero,
Judge. Affirmed with directions.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Hugo Martinez appeals the trial court’s order following a
full resentencing hearing pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1172.75. Counsel has filed a
brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), requesting this court to conduct an independent
can be made by a clerk, by counsel, or by the court itself. (Ibid. [judge misspoke].) A
court “has the inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records at any time so as to
make these records reflect the true facts.” (In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705 .)
The resentencing court here awarded defendant the same number of custody
credits as the original sentencing court ordered in 2009 (955 actual plus 76 conduct, for a
total of 1031). {CT 33-36, 89-92} The court failed to recalculate the actual time
defendant had served pursuant to the sentence for which he was being resentenced and
reflect those credits in the amended abstract of judgment. Our Supreme Court
determined that when a trial court resentences a defendant on remand, it must credit him
with all actual days he spent in custody up to that time, including his time in custody after
the original sentencing. (People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37 [“the trial court,
having modified defendant’s sentence on remand, was obliged, in its new abstract of
judgment, to credit him with all actual days he had spent in custody”].) In a footnote,
4
appointed counsel acknowledges that defendant’s credits should have been recalculated
through the resentencing date, but contends that because the court clerk “did not change
the sentencing date on the amended abstract of judgment, the error is likely harmless
because the Department already is calculating appellant’s credits.” {AOB 6} However, in
order to ensure defendant receives credit for all the actual time he has served, we will
remand the matter for the trial court to recalculate his credits as of the date of the
resentencing hearing and order the amended abstract of judgment to reflect the date of the
resentencing hearing in the “Date of Hearing” section.
DISPOSITION
The matter is remanded and the trial court is directed to recalculate the proper
amount of custody credits as of the date of the resentencing hearing.
The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment setting forth
the modified credits and reflecting the date of the resentencing hearing, and to forward a
copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Otherwise, the judgment is
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J. RAPHAEL J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's resentencing judgment but remanded the case for the trial court to recalculate custody credits to include time served up to the date of the resentencing hearing.
Issues
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to strike prior strike convictions and a prior serious felony enhancement.
Whether the trial court erred by failing to recalculate the defendant's actual custody credits at the time of resentencing.
Disposition. Affirmed with directions.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The court failed to recalculate the actual time defendant had served pursuant to the sentence for which he was being resentenced and reflect those credits in the amended abstract of judgment.”
“The matter is remanded and the trial court is directed to recalculate the proper amount of custody credits as of the date of the resentencing hearing.”