People v. Robinson CA5

Filed 6/14/22 P. v. Robinson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F082480 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F16907196) v.

KEVIN ROBINSON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gary D. Hoff, Judge. Solomon Wollack, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Canzoneri and Heather S. Gimle, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Meehan, J. and De Santos, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Kevin Robinson pled no contest to numerous offenses, including attempted kidnapping to commit robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664/209, subd. (b)(1)),1 second degree robbery (§ 211), and home invasion robbery (§§ 211/213, subd. (a)(1)(A)). The trial court sentenced appellant to 30 years in state prison pursuant to the terms of a negotiated plea agreement. Appellant’s claims on appeal are limited to the trial court’s calculation of his presentence conduct credits pursuant to section 4019. First, he claims the trial court should have awarded presentence conduct credits for his time spent on presentence electronic monitoring. Second, he claims the trial court inadvertently excluded 40 days of actual custody time from its calculation, thereby denying him six additional days of presentence conduct credits. Respondent concedes both claims. We accept respondent’s concessions and remand the matter to the trial court to recalculate appellant’s presentence conduct credits. In all other respects, we affirm. BACKGROUND Appellant’s convictions are based on a series of armed robberies involving 13 different victims. We need not discuss the facts underlying appellant’s conviction in detail because they are not relevant to this appeal. At appellant’s sentencing hearing, the trial court awarded the following presentence credits: 823 days for time spent in actual custody, plus 117 days of conduct credits pursuant to section 4019, plus 677 days for time spent on presentence electronic monitoring, for a total of 1,617 days. Because appellant was convicted of a violent felony within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (c), his accrual of conduct credits was limited pursuant to section 2933.1, subdivision (a) to “no more than 15 percent.”