People v. Juarez CA4/1

Filed 3/24/26 P. v. Juarez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D084896

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD296298)

ORLANDO HERNANDEZ JUAREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jeffrey F. Fraser, Judge. Remanded with directions and affirmed in all other respects. Kevin Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Robin Urbanski, Acting Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Alan L. Amann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Orlando Hernandez Juarez appeals aspects of the sentence imposed for his convictions for forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2); count 1);

corporal injury to a person with whom he was in a dating relationship (§ 273.5(a); count 2); false imprisonment by violence or menace (§ 236/237(a); count 3); and attempting to dissuade a witness from reporting a crime (§ 136.1(b)(1); count 4). For count 2, the jury also found true that, in the commission of the offense, Juarez personally inflicted great bodily injury on

the victim under circumstances involving domestic violence.1 (§ 12022.7(e).) Juarez argues execution of his sentence for false imprisonment should have been stayed under Penal Code section 654(a) because it arose from the same “single course of conduct” as the other counts. We conclude the court’s comments at the original sentencing—which suggested section 654 applied to the false imprisonment count—warrant remanding for clarification rather than construing the court’s later silence at resentencing as an implied finding to the contrary. In addition, the parties agree (1) the presentence custody credits awarded shorted Juarez one day of actual custody credit and (2) the trial court should have calculated the time in custody between Juarez’s original sentencing and his resentencing. We agree, so we remand for the trial court to correct the presentence custody credits and to calculate the custody credits between the original sentencing and resentencing. We therefore remand with directions for the trial court to clarify whether section 654 applies to count 3 (false imprisonment) and to amend and calculate custody credits consistent with this opinion.