People v. Givens CA3
Filed 8/26/16 P. v. Givens CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C079995
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 14F04451)
v.
FRANCOIS POINTIER GIVENS,
Defendant and Appellant.
A jury convicted defendant Francois Pointier Givens of inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant and assault with a deadly weapon. The jury also found he had personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon. On appeal, defendant contends his presentence credits must be recalculated because his convictions do not subject him to a 15 percent limit on presentence conduct credits. He further contends a typographic error in the abstract of judgment must be corrected. The People concede both points, and we agree.
1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant stabbed the victim multiple times with a screwdriver. He was convicted by jury of inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)—count one)1 and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)—count two). As to count one, the jury found he had personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) And the court found defendant had suffered a prior strike.
The court imposed a 14-year aggregate term consisting of eight years on count one (the upper term, doubled for the strike); a one-year enhancement under section 12022, subdivision (b)(1); and a five-year prior serious felony enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a). The court also imposed a four-year term on count two but stayed execution of sentence under section 654.
The court awarded 410 days of presentence credit (357 actual, 53 conduct). In doing so, it noted, “There is the 15 percent limitation because this is a violent felony.”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)