People v. Stover CA1/3

Filed 11/5/15 P. v. Stover CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A143847 v. CARL DAVID STOVER, JR., (Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. CR1305813) Defendant and Appellant.

While awaiting trial on stalking charges, defendant Carl David Stover, Jr., participated in a supervised release program operated by the county’s probation department, although the program had not been adopted pursuant to a resolution of the county board of supervisors. Following entry of his guilty plea, defendant was placed on probation with the condition that he spend one year in county jail. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his request for preconviction custody credits for the time he spent on supervised release. We agree that defendant was entitled to custody credits for his time on supervised release and, therefore, we shall remand the matter for recalculation of preconviction custody credits and affirm the judgment in all other respects. Procedural History1 On December 16, 2013, defendant was charged with one felony count of stalking in violation of Penal Code2 section 646.9, subdivision (b) and one misdemeanor count of 1 The facts of the underlying offense are irrelevant to the decision on appeal and are thus omitted.

1

disregarding a restraining order in violation of section 273.6, subdivision (a). On December 23, 2013, defendant was taken into custody and held on $110,000 bail. The following day, the court approved defendant’s release into the probation department’s supervised release program “under the conditions in [the probation department’s] report.” The probation department’s report recommended the following conditions, among others: “(1) The defendant will reside at [address] . . . . The defendant agrees to remain in the above residence at all times, except those times approved by the Home Supervision Officer. [¶] (2) Defendant understands the Home Detention restrictions may be enforced by the use of computer technology. To ensure defendant’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the Home Detention Electronic Monitoring program, [he] agrees to wear . . . [an] ankle bracelet/transmitter twenty-four (24) hours a day during the entire period of home detention . . . . [¶] (3) . . . [¶] (4) . . . Probation or other law enforcement officers may enter defendant’s residence at any time . . . for any . . . reason involving the monitoring, inspection, verifying, or enforcing this agreement or the court’s order.” Defendant was terminated from the supervised release program on May 5, 2014. On September 17, 2014, defendant pled guilty to a lesser offense of count one, under section 646.9, subdivision (a), and to count two as charged. Consistent with the terms of his negotiated plea, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation, with the condition that he serve a 365-day term in county jail. The court awarded defendant presentence custody credits of 180 days for time spent in county jail, but refused to apply an additional 131 days of presentence credit for time defendant spent in the supervised release program. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal from the court’s denial of preconviction credits. Discussion Preconviction custody credits are governed by section 2900.5, subdivision (a) which provides in relevant part that “[i]n all felony and misdemeanor convictions, either