People v. Russell CA3

Filed 7/22/16 P. v. Russell CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C076370

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12F05835)

RONALD EUGENE RUSSELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Ronald Eugene Russell guilty of 49 counts of grand theft (Pen. Code,1 § 487, subd. (a)) and 2 counts of petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a)) and found true two enhancements (§§ 186.11, subd. (a), 12022.6, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant to serve 13 years 4 months in state prison.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

On appeal, defendant contends the trial court incorrectly calculated his presentence custody credits by using the wrong version of section 4019. We conclude defendant is entitled to the current credit accrual rate under section 4019. Under this calculation, defendant should have received two days of conduct credit for every two days he spent in presentence custody. We modify the award of conduct credits, and affirm the judgment as modified. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In light of the limited issue presented by defendant, a detailed recitation of the facts underlying defendant’s convictions is not necessary for our resolution of this appeal. The facts are summarized from the probation report as follows. Between October 2009 and July 2010, defendant was a licensed real estate broker doing business as “Summer Hills Realty,” “R. Russell Properties, LLC.,” and other names. Defendant conducted a “Rent to own” program he advertised via the local newspaper, radio advertisements, and internet Websites. Defendant profited from the business by requiring clients to pay an up-front or buy-in fee of $2,900. In return, defendant would provide the client with a list of foreclosed homes and the client would select from that list (or identify on his or her own) a home the client wished to eventually own pursuant to defendant’s program. Defendant would purchase the selected home on behalf of the rent to own client and lease the home to the client for up to two years. At some point during the lease period, defendant would allow the client to purchase the home from him and transition from renter to homeowner. As part of the program, the client was required to sign defendant’s contract that provided the $2,900 up-front fee would pay for moving costs, first month’s rent, and security deposit, and would be applied to the down payment and closing costs when the client elected to purchase the property. The contract further provided the $2,900 up-front