People v. Dickerson CA4/1

Filed 1/22/26 P. v. Dickerson CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D087148

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. FSB23002768) v.

JOHN T. DICKERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Gregory S. Tavill, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions. Denise M. Rudasill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel and Stephanie H. Chow, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 A jury found John T. Dickerson guilty of perjury by declaration (Pen.

Code,2 § 118, subd. (a)) and of offering a false instrument (§ 115, subd. (a)). The court imposed an aggregate term of 16 months for the offense of offering a false instrument and stayed a two-year term for the perjury conviction under section 654. On appeal, Dickerson contends insufficient evidence supported his perjury conviction and that the jury instructions omitted an essential element of the offense. The People concede the evidence was insufficient to sustain the perjury conviction. Dickerson further argues his excess presentence custody credits must be applied to reduce his parole period, asserting that he is entitled to eight days of parole credit. The People agree any excess credits should be applied to reduce Dickerson’s parole period but contend he has only one excess day available for that purpose. We accept the People’s concession and reverse the perjury conviction, which renders Dickerson’s instructional claim moot, and remand for resentencing. As to custody credits claim, the record does not permit a determination of the precise number of excess custody credits. Because we are remanding for resentencing, we direct the trial court to calculate and determine the appropriate application of those credits.