People v. Reynolds CA1/1

Filed 8/2/22 P. v. Reynolds CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A163911

v. (Mendocino County LINDA MARIE REYNOLDS, Super. Ct. Nos. SCUK-CRCR-2020- Defendant and Appellant. 34251, SCUK-CRCR- 2019-33080)

Defendant Linda Marie Reynolds appeals from an order revoking probation and imposing sentence in two underlying cases. Her appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising no arguable issues and sought this court’s independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgement. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly) People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Upon review of the record, we directed the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing two issues regarding custody and conduct credits: 1) whether 62 days of custody credit based on defendant’s violations of probation should be credited to the sentences in both cases, which were ordered to run concurrently, and 2) whether additional conduct credits should

1

have been awarded based on the trial court’s grant of defendant’s motion for five additional days of custody credits. The parties concur that defendant is entitled to additional custody credits applied to both cases, and additional conduct credit applicable to the grant of five additional days of custody credit. We conclude defendant is entitled to the additional credits and reverse with directions. BACKGROUND The 2019 and 2020 Cases In October 2019, the Mendocino County District Attorney charged defendant with a felony violation of resisting an officer by force or threat. (Pen. Code, § 69, subd. (a).)1 Defendant entered a no contest plea pursuant to a plea agreement. After she failed to appear for sentencing in that case, a second complaint alleging failure to appear after being released on her own recognizance was filed (§ 1320, subd. (b)), to which defendant also pled no contest and admitted the special allegation of being released on her own recognizance when the felony was committed (§ 12022.1). The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years in both cases. In the 2019 resisting an officer case, as a condition of probation the court ordered defendant to serve 37 days with credit for 19 days served. In the 2020 failure to appear case, the court ordered defendant to serve 92 days with credit for 46 days served. Three months later, the probation officer filed petitions alleging probation violations and failure to appear. Defendant admitted the violations, and the court revoked and reinstated probation.