People v. Delgado CA2/5

Filed 9/3/15 P. v. Delgado CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B255959

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA131423) v.

ALEJANDRO F. DELGADO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Arthur M. Lew, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with instructions. Jeffrey Lewis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Jason Tran, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Herbert S. Tetef, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

A jury found defendant and appellant Alejandro Delgado (defendant) guilty of first degree burglary. On appeal from his judgment of conviction, he contends that the trial court did not award him the amount of conduct credit to which he was entitled and requests that we conduct an independent review of the sealed transcript of the in camera hearing on his Pitchess1 motion to ensure that all discoverable materials were turned over to him. The Attorney General agrees that the trial court did not award defendant the amount of conduct credit to which he was entitled and does not object to an independent review of the sealed transcript of the in camera hearing on his Pitchess motion. We hold that the trial court incorrectly calculated the number of days of conduct credit to which defendant was entitled and, after independently reviewing the sealed transcript of the in camera hearing on defendant’s Pitchess motion, conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on defendant’s Pitchess motion. We therefore remand the matter to the trial court with instructions to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect that defendant was awarded the number of days of presentence conduct credit to which he was entitled.