In re Tufono CA5

Filed 11/18/21 In re Tufono CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re F083133

ARVELLO TUFONO, (Super. Ct. No. CRM023280)

On Habeas Corpus. OPINION

THE COURT* ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of habeas corpus. Arvello Tufono, in pro. per., for Petitioner. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent. -ooOoo- On August 4, 2021, petitioner filed a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” contending he is entitled to additional presentence credits for a 19-day period between the expiration of his parole hold and his release on bail. The Attorney General concedes petitioner is entitled to presentence credits for this 19-day period. We agree and grant peremptory relief.

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In June 2014, petitioner was convicted in Merced County Superior Court of first degree burglary (Pen. Code,1 § 459) and resisting an executive officer (§ 69), and admitted a prior serious felony and strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (a)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d).) He was sentenced to 11 years four months in state prison. Petitioner was arrested for the above offense on June 8, 2012. When he was arrested, he was a parolee at large with an active warrant and was placed on a parole hold. On June 22, 2012, the Board of Parole Hearings revoked petitioner’s parole and ordered him returned to custody for 180 days, which he served in Merced County Jail. He was released on bail pending trial on September 24, 2012. He did not return to custody until April 3, 2014. Petitioner claims his parole hold was lifted on September 5, 2012, and therefore he is entitled to presentence credits from that date until the date of his release. Although there is nothing in the record confirming custody on his parole revocation ended on that date, confinement pursuant to a revocation of parole is capped at 180 days (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 15, § 2740, subd. (b)) and served at half time (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 15, § 2743, subd. (b)). Therefore, petitioner claims his parole hold must have ended on September 5, 2012, 90 days from June 8, 2012. Petitioner raised a similar claim on direct appeal, contending he is entitled to presentence credits from the date of his arrest to the date of his release on bail. We concluded petitioner failed to meet his “burden of demonstrating ‘that the conduct that led to his conviction was the sole reason for his presentence confinement[;]’ (People v. Shabazz (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1259),” noting the probation report states