People v. Avakyan CA2/3

Filed 2/20/14 P. v. Avakyan CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B250746

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA331416) v.

HARRY AVAKYAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Drew E. Edwards, Judge. Affirmed.

Stephen M. Hinkle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant, Harry Avakyan, appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion for additional pre-sentence custody credits.1 We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Following a jury trial, Avakyan was found guilty of leaving the scene of an accident and multiple counts of felony drunk driving. On direct appeal, this court found a number of errors, including that Avakyan had been awarded an excessive number of pre- sentence custody credits. (People v. Avakyan (Nov. 8, 2010, B218926 [nonpub. opn.].) This court, accordingly, ordered the trial court to reduce Avakyan’s custody credits pursuant to Penal Code section 2933.1 and to forward an amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections. (People v. Avakyan, supra, B218926.) At proceedings held on January 28, 2011, the trial court re-sentenced Avakyan and modified the number of his credits. At proceedings held on April 4, 2013, the trial court prepared a minute order indicating it had “read and considered the correspondence from the Department of Corrections regarding the defendant’s custody credits awarded on re-sentencing [on January 28, 2011].” The trial court also indicated it had reviewed the court file from the matter and the applicable court rules. The trial court then ordered that “the minute order of [January 28, 2011] be amended, nunc pro tunc, to reflect a total of 684 days [of] custody credits (595 actual days plus 89 good time/work time days). [¶] [The] [c]ourt further order[ed] that an amended abstract of judgment be prepared and forwarded to the Department of Corrections.” On June 13, 2013, Avakyan, acting in propria persona, filed in the trial court an “Emergency Motion to Correct [the] Abstract of Judgment to Reflect Pre-Sentence In- Custody Credits Pursuant to People v. Brown[] (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314.”2 On July 16,