People v. Garcia CA2/2

Filed 7/28/16 P. v. Garcia CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B267403

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA076294) v.

ERNESTINE GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Daniel B. Feldstern, Judge. Affirmed.

Mark R. Feeser, 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 and Robert M. Snider, Deputy Attorney Generals, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

Ernestine Garcia (defendant) appeals the trial court’s order redesignating as a misdemeanor her felony conviction of petty theft with a prior. Specifically, she claims that the court should have applied her excess custody credits against the one-year parole term the court imposed to follow her jail sentence on the redesignated misdemeanor. This argument was recently rejected by our Supreme Court in People v. Morales (2016) 63 Cal.4th 399 (Morales). We accordingly affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2013, defendant entered a plea to a felony count of petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code, § 666, subd. (a))1, and admitted that she had a prior “strike” conviction within the meaning of our Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j) &1170.12, subds. (a)- (d).) The trial court imposed a 32-month prison sentence. Thereafter, defendant petitioned to have her 2013 felony conviction redesignated as a misdemeanor pursuant to the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Proposition 47). In May 2015, the trial court granted the petition, redesignated the offense as misdemeanor shoplifting (§ 459.5), and imposed a sentence of 365 days in jail (offset by 280 days of actual custody credit and an unspecified number of days of good time/work time credits to be calculated by the County jail or Department of Corrections) to be followed by one year of parole. In August 2015, defendant filed a motion to correct her sentence, arguing that (1) the maximum sentence for shoplifting was six months in jail, not one year, and (2) the trial court should apply her excess custody credits against her one-year parole term. The trial court indicated that it had “incorrectly reclassified” the crime as shoplifting, designated the misdemeanor offense as a count of petty theft with a prior, and reaffirmed its previously imposed one-year jail sentence as lawfully within the one-year maximum for a conviction of petty theft with a prior. The court also determined that defendant was entitled to 508 days of custody credit (consisting of 254 days of actual credit plus 254