People v. Dandy CA2/2

Filed 12/17/15 P. v. Dandy CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B259775

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA409414) v.

JENNIFER NOEL DANDY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Craig E. Veals, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

Carey D. Gorden, 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, Mary Sanchez, Deputy Attorney General, and Andrew S. Pruitt, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Defendant Jennifer Noel Dandy (defendant) appeals the trial court’s calculation of her presentence custody credits. We conclude that the court’s calculations are not correct, and order that her total custody credits be reduced by eight days. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On July 2, 2013, defendant entered a plea to a single count of possessing cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). The trial court imposed but suspended a four- year prison sentence and placed her on probation for five years. The court noted that defendant had four days of custody credit. Just over a year later, on August 1, 2014, defendant was present in a hotel room with narcotics in plain view; she also possessed a purse containing $560 in various denominations of cash and the keys to a car containing additional narcotics. Police arrested her that day, and her bail was set at $30,000. Six days later, on August 7, 2014, the trial court summarily revoked her probation on the 2013 case and issued a no bail bench warrant. The People opted to proceed against defendant for this 2014 conduct as a violation of her probation in the 2013 case rather than as a separate prosecution. On October 1, 2014, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the probation violation, and found defendant in violation. The trial court imposed the previously suspended four-year prison term. The court awarded defendant 124 days of custody credit—62 days of actual credit (from August 1, 2014 through October 1, 2014), and 62 days of good time/work time credit. Although the People informed the court that defendant had four days of unused custody credit from the time of her initial sentencing, the court did not award those credits. The abstract of judgment is consistent with the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. Defendant timely appeals. DISCUSSION Defendant phrases her sole argument on appeal as a challenge to the trial court’s “fail[ure] to correct the abstract of judgment to show the correct amount of presentence custody credits.” But the abstract of judgment matches the court’s oral pronouncement of