People v. Hendrix CA5

California Court of Appeal Nov 4, 2020 No. F079934Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant was not entitled to additional presentence custody credits because his incarceration during the disputed period was attributable to a separate criminal proceeding, and affirmed the judgment.

Issues

Whether the defendant was entitled to additional presentence custody credits for time served while a sentenced prisoner in another case.
Whether the defendant's claim regarding the custodian's calculation of his release date is cognizable on direct appeal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“He is not entitled to presentence credits in the instant case for time served in custody that is attributable to a different proceeding.”

“To the extent the court erred in calculating credits, it did so in defendant’s favor.”

“Finally, to the extent defendant believes his custodian has miscalculated his release date, he may raise this issue in a petition for writ of habeas corpus”

Filed 11/4/20 P. v. Hendrix CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F079934 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F16907410) v.

DAVON TERRILE HENDRIX, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Don Penner, Judge. Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and Meehan, J.

Appointed counsel for defendant Davon Terrile Hendrix asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant responded, asserting he is entitled to presentence custody credits beginning on May 9, 2019, and that his custodian incorrectly calculated his release date. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm. BACKGROUND On November 11, 2016, defendant parked his 2002 BMW in the back of a convenience store in Fresno. Defendant walked into the store and entered the office where he took a plastic bank bag containing $71,777. He placed the bag under his shirt, exited out the back door and drove away. Defendant subsequently was arrested and told the police that he committed the theft on his own.1 On December 14, 2016, the Fresno County District Attorney filed a felony complaint charging defendant with grand theft of personal property (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a);2 count 1), and second degree commercial burglary (§ 459/460, subd. (b); count 2). With respect to count 1, the district attorney alleged the value of the property exceeded $65,000 (§ 12022.6, subd. (a)(1)). Additionally, the district attorney alleged defendant had suffered four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On February 22, 2018, defendant pled no contest to count 1 pursuant to People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, on the condition he could argue for a split sentence of three years. The remaining counts and allegations were dismissed. The matter came on for sentencing on May 22, 2018. It is unclear what occurred. The reporter’s transcript for that date indicates defendant failed to appear and a bench

People v. Hendrix CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief