People v. Padilla CA6

Filed 4/19/16 P. v. Padilla CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H041565, H042625 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1357044)

v.

MELECIO ALEJANDRO PADILLA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Melecio Alejandro Padilla pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, being under the influence of a controlled substance, and falsely identifying himself to a peace officer, all on May 14, 2013. The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 32 months in prison. In October 2014, defendant filed a notice of appeal in this court in case No. H041565. In November 2014, defendant petitioned the trial court for resentencing under Proposition 47. In January 2015, the court recalled the sentence under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d), and resentenced defendant as a misdemeanant to 18 months in county jail. The court imposed a $140 restitution fine, among others. Because defendant had 812 days of custody credits, the court deemed the sentence served. The court denied defendant’s motion to apply his excess custody credits to reduce his restitution fine. Defendant appeals from that denial in case No. H042625.

The parties agree that the appeal in case No. H041565 is moot in light of the trial court’s recall of the sentence initially imposed in 2014. We agree with the parties and will dismiss case No. H041565 as moot. As to case No. H042625, the Attorney General concedes that the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion to apply his excess custody credits to reduce the restitution fine based on this court’s recent opinion in People v. Morris (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 94 (Morris). We accept the Attorney General’s concession. We will reverse the order and remand with instructions to apply the excess custody credits to the restitution fine. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Facts of the Offense1 On May 14, 2013, a San José police officer spotted defendant and another person riding their bicycles at night without headlights. The officer ordered the two riders to stop, but the other person fled. Defendant began riding away as well, but then stopped. The officer observed signs that defendant was intoxicated. When the officer asked defendant for identification, he falsely identified himself as Enrique Arreola. The officer placed defendant under arrest. A search of his person yielded two plastic bindles containing 0.5 grams of methamphetamine, a glass pipe with burnt residue, and three shaven car keys. Defendant admitted giving the officer a false name and admitted he had recently smoked methamphetamine. B. Procedural Background The prosecution charged defendant by felony complaint with four counts: Count One—Felony possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)); Count Two—Possession of drug paraphernalia (former Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1, subd. (a)); Count Three—Being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health &