People v. Hoffman CA5

Filed 6/2/15 P. v. Hoffman CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F068278 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF40105) v.

SARA ELISABETH HOFFMAN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Douglas C. Boyack, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Tuolumne Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Karriem Baker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Henry J. Valle, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Poochigian, J.

INTRODUCTION Defendant, Sara Elisabeth Hoffman, was charged with transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). A jury found defendant guilty on both counts, and defendant was placed on five years of probation and ordered to serve four months in county jail and four months of electronic monitoring. On appeal, defendant argues: (1) the trial court miscalculated defendant’s presentence conduct credit; (2) the minute order and order granting probation include restitution fines that were not imposed by the trial court; and (3) the minute order and order granting probation erroneously state defendant was guilty by plea rather than guilty by jury trial. We order the minute order and order granting probation amended to reflect an additional six days of presentence conduct credit for defendant and defendant’s conviction by jury trial. We also order defendant’s restitution fines stricken from the minute order and order granting probation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. DISCUSSION I. Defendant is entitled to six days of presentence conduct credit. Defendant argues, and the People concede, that the trial court erred by failing to award defendant six days of presentence conduct credit. We agree. Under Penal Code section 4019, subdivision (f), a prisoner is entitled to two days of conduct credit for every two days of presentence custody in county jail. Here, defendant served six days in county jail prior to the beginning of her sentence but, while she received credit for the six days actually served, she did not receive any additional presentence conduct credit. Accordingly, we modify the judgment to reflect an additional six days of presentence conduct credit.