People v. Rojas CA2/1

Filed 2/20/14 P. v. Rojas CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B245433

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA068009) v.

AARON ESQUEDA ROJAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Beverly Reid O’Connell , Judge. Modified and affirmed; remanded with directions. Jeralyn Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Linda C. Johnson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Michael Katz, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________

Defendant Aaron Esqueda Rojas1 appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of second degree murder and evading an officer, causing death. Defendant contends the trial court deprived him of two days of actual presentence custody credit. The Attorney General agrees defendant is entitled to at least one, and perhaps two, additional days and requests that we remand for the trial court to determine the correct credit. We agree defendant is entitled to at least one, and probably two, additional days for presentence actual custody. Given the parties’ disagreement regarding the second day of credit and the state of the record, we modify the judgment by increasing defendant’s pretrial credit by one day and remand for the trial court to determine whether he is entitled to an additional day of credit. BACKGROUND Defendant was charged with murder and evading an officer, causing death, based upon a June 10, 2010 incident in which defendant sped away from an attempted felony stop of the car he was driving, lost control of his car, and struck a six-year-old girl, inflicting fatal injuries upon her. Because the only evidence presented at trial relevant to the sole issue raised on appeal pertains to the date and timing of defendant’s arrest, we summarize only that evidence. After defendant’s car struck the girl, it collided with a wall. Defendant and one of his two passengers fled on foot, and the Los Angeles Police Department officers who had been pursuing defendant’s car chased them. Defendant managed to elude the two officers who were chasing him. Police cordoned off the area and called in additional officers, including a canine team. Officer Cliff Chu, who was part of the “K-9 platoon,” testified his team arrived in the “late afternoon or early evening,” “while it was still daylight.” A police dog tracked a scent to the gated yard of a residence. The dog handler