People v. Hardy CA2/6

Filed 4/5/16 P. v. Hardy 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B265474 (Super. Ct. No. 2011043554) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

JEFFERY CLAY HARDY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Jeffery Clay Hardy appeals the trial court's order resentencing him under Proposition 47 and placing him on one year of misdemeanor parole. (Pen. Code,1 § 1170.18.) Appellant contends the court erred in refusing to apply his excess custody credits to reduce his term of parole. He also claims that his excess credits should have been applied to satisfy fees imposed at his original sentencing hearing. We agree with the latter claim and shall order the judgment modified accordingly. Otherwise, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In May 2013, appellant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor charges of being under the

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)) and possession of a smoking device (former Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1, subd. (a)). The court sentenced appellant to 16 months in state prison, awarded him 689 days of presentence custody credit, and ordered him released on post-release community supervision (PRCS). Appellant was also ordered to pay a $200 laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11372.5) and a $600 drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7). On December 22, 2014, appellant petitioned for resentencing under Proposition 47 on the ground that his conviction for possessing a controlled substance was now a misdemeanor. The court granted the petition and resentenced appellant to a year in county jail with credit for time served. Appellant's attorney asserted, "the defendant's already served in excess of 365. So the only issue is whether or not this Court is going to be PR[C]S or a one-year parole if the Court wishes him to do that." The court responded, "I will discharge the defendant from custody. He will continue on PR[C]S until the sentencing hearing. I will suspend his reporting requirements until a ruling on the issue January 16th at 9:00 a.m. in this courtroom." Appellant remained on PRCS until June 26, 2015, when the court ordered him placed on one year of misdemeanor parole "back from the date" of his resentencing on December 22, 2104. The court rejected appellant's claim that his excess custody credits should be applied to reduce the term of parole. DISCUSSION I. Appellant contends the court erred in refusing to apply his excess custody credits against his one-year term of misdemeanor parole. We rejected similar claims in People v. Hickman (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 984 (review granted Aug. 26, 2015, S227964) and People v. McCoy (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 431 (review granted Oct. 14,