People v. Quijada

Opinion

CARR, J.

Defendant was charged with escape from Deuel Vocational Institute (Pen. Code, § 2042), and with the theft of a truck (Pen. Code, § 487). He entered a negotiated plea whereby he admitted the escape on the condition that he would be sentenced to the lower term to be served consecutive with the state prison sentence he was then serving and the theft charge would be dismissed. Immediately after the entry of his plea, defendant was sentenced to the lower term of 16 months for the escape and the theft charge was dismissed.

[791]

On appeal defendant contends: (1) the court failed to state reasons for imposition of a consecutive sentence; and (2) he is entitled to additional presentence custody credits.

It is the general rule that the court is required to state its reasons for imposition of a consecutive sentence.

(People

v.

Walker

(1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 619, 622 [148 Cal.Rptr. 66].) However, there is sufficient compliance with this requirement where, as here, the court recites the plea bargain as its reason.

(People

v.

Sutton

(1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 162, 165-166 [169 Cal.Rptr. 656].)

The procedural posture under which defendant’s second contention arises is as follows: Prior to his escape from Deuel Vocational Institute, defendant had been given an original release date of May 19, 1983. Following his escape on October 24, 1982, and his recapture the following day, the Department of Corrections reduced his behavior credits by 45 days and gave him a new release date of July 4, 1983. He was sentenced on the escape charge on May 31, 1983, that sentence ordered to run consecutive to that which would terminate on July 4.

Relying on

In re Atiles