People v. Wakefield CA1/1

Filed 3/29/22 P. v. Wakefield CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A163610 v. DARYL WAKEFIELD, (Solano County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. VCR221437)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 In our prior opinion affirming defendant Daryl Wakefield’s conviction for murder, attempted murder, and misdemeanor child abuse, we ordered the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment with respect to its award of actual custody and conduct credits. On remand, the trial court held a hearing on the issue of credits and prepared an amended abstract of judgment and amended sentencing minute order. Because the amended abstract of judgment and amended minute order do not reflect the judgment as modified by our prior opinion, we again remand for the trial court to enter the correct award of credits.

We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California 1

Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.

I. BACKGROUND Because the facts underlying defendant’s convictions are irrelevant to the issue raised on appeal, we do not summarize them, and instead incorporate by reference our opinion in the prior appeal, People v. Wakefield (Nov. 23, 2020, A158164) [nonpub. opn.] (Wakefield I). In the underlying case, defendant was convicted of first degree murder (Pen. Code,2 § 187, subd. (a); count 1); attempted first degree murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664; count 2); one count of felony child abuse (§ 273a, subd. (a); counts 3); and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 5). He was also convicted of one count of misdemeanor child abuse. (§ 273a, subd. (b); count 4.) Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 79 years to life, plus a consecutive term of 180 days for count 4. At the original sentencing hearing, the trial court calculated defendant’s credits as follows: Beginning with count 4, the trial court ordered “the 180 days sentence of 90 actual plus 90 [section] 4019 for a total of 180 days.” As to counts 2, 3, and 5, the court ordered “1,751 actual plus 262 pursuant to [section] 2933.1 for a total of 2,013 days toward his sentence. And that reflects his actual days less 90 actual days. His actual is 1,841 as of today minus 90, which is attributed to Count 4. That leaves 1,751 on [counts 2, 3, and 5].” As to count 1, the trial court stated defendant has “zero credits” because it was a consecutive term. In our prior opinion, we concluded defendant was entitled to a total of 1,841 days of actual custody credit for time served. (Wakefield I, supra, A158164.) We also determined that the trial court erred in awarding