People v. Eggen CA4/3

Filed 12/7/15 P. v. Eggen CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G051158

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12HF3510)

ERIC MARK EGGEN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Vickie Hix, Commissioner. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. Steven J. Carroll, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, and Barry Carlton, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Eric Mark Eggen appeals an order granting his petition for resentencing under Proposition 47. Although he approves of the trial court’s reduction of his felony conviction to a misdemeanor, he contends the court erred in subjecting him to parole. We disagree. However, we do agree with appellant that his excess custody credits should be counted toward his parole period and his eligible fines. Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand the matter for further proceedings. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKROUND In 2013, appellant pleaded guilty to felony drug possession and admitted having suffered a prior strike conviction and served a prior prison term. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11377, subd. (a); Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (d)-(e)(2), 1170.12, subds. (b)- (c)(2), 667.5, subd. (b).)1 As part of the plea agreement, the trial court struck appellant’s priors and sentenced him to 16 months in prison. It also ordered him to register as a narcotics offender. Following his release from prison, appellant was placed on post release community supervision (PRCS). In late 2014, he filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.18, which was added to the Penal Code pursuant to Proposition 47. The trial court reduced appellant’s felony conviction to a misdemeanor and resentenced him to 365 days in jail. It also placed appellant on parole for a period of one year. DISCUSSION Appellant contends the court erred in the first instance by subjecting him to parole, and then it compounded that error by failing to reduce the length of his parole and the amount of his eligible fines by his excess custody credits, i.e., the difference between the amount of custody credit he had on his original sentence and the term he received on resentencing. Appellant also contends the court erred in ordering him to register as a