People v. Iverson CA4/1

Filed 2/25/21 P. v. Iverson CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D077556

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE394250)

TONY IVERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Steven E. Stone, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions. Robert V. Vallandigham, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Heather Arambarri and Steve Oetting, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted Tony Iverson of burglary of an inhabited dwelling

(Pen. Code,1 §§ 459, 460) and using the personal identification information of another person (§ 530.5, subd. (a)). Iverson admitted two prior serious felony prior convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and three prior strikes (§ 667, subds. (b)- (i)). The trial court dismissed the strike priors and one of the serious felony priors. The court selected a determinate term of 11 years eight months in prison. The court determined the term would be served consecutively to the two-year term Iverson was currently serving in a separate case (case No. SCE388312), for a total of 13 years eight months. Iverson appeals challenging only the sentence imposed. Iverson argues, and the People agree, the court failed to comply with section 1170.1, subdivision (a) in the calculation of the aggregate term for the two cases. Iverson also contends, and the People again agree, the court erred in the calculation of custody credits and that the abstract of judgment must be amended to delete reference to a 15 percent custody credit limitation. After reviewing the record, we agree with the parties as to each issue. We will vacate the sentence and remand the case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts of the offenses are not relevant to the resolution of the issues in this appeal. We will include the short summary of the facts as set forth in the respondent’s brief to provide context for the case. In June 2019, Scott J. discovered that his wallet, which included a credit card and driver’s license, had been taken from his car.