People v. Reza CA2/6

Filed 10/8/15 P. v. Reza CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B260930 (Super. Ct. No. 2009044921) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

ERIC EDWARD REZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Eric Edward Reza appeals the trial court's order resentencing him under Proposition 47 with credit for time served and placing him on one year of supervised parole. (Pen. Code,1 § 1170.18.) Appellant contends the court erred in concluding that his excess custody credits do not apply against his term of parole as contemplated in In re Sosa (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 1002. We recently

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

concluded otherwise in People v. McCoy (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 431 (McCoy) and reach the same conclusion here.2 Accordingly, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In February 2010, appellant pled no contest to possession of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and admitted serving a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on three years felony probation. In July 2010, the court revoked probation and sentenced appellant to three years in state prison. In October 2011, appellant was released on parole. Parole was subsequently revoked and reinstated in April 2014 and September 2014. In December 2014, while appellant was still on parole, he was resentenced under Proposition 47. The court redesignated appellant's conviction as a misdemeanor and ordered him to serve 365 days in county jail with credit for time served. Appellant was also placed on supervised parole for one year in accordance with subdivision (b) of section 1170.18. The court rejected appellant's claim that he was entitled to have his excess custody credits applied against his term of parole as contemplated in In re Sosa (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 1002 (Sosa). In lieu of a separate written ruling, the court "transfer[red]" the transcript of its ruling on the same issue earlier that day in People v. Jonathan