P. v. Ramirez CA2/2

Filed 6/4/13 P. v. Ramirez CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B234829

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA365954) v.

ROBERT CARLOS RAMIREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Barbara R. Johnson, Judge. Affirmed with directions.

Susan L. Wolk, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson and Steven D. Matthews, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

Appellant Robert Carlos Ramirez was charged with 32 felony counts. He pled nolo contendere to two counts of using a device to defraud a telephone company (Pen. Code, § 502.7, subd. (a)(5))1 (counts 1 & 3) and to three counts of identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)) (counts 5, 6 & 7). He also admitted the allegation that he took, damaged and destroyed property in excess of $65,000 within the meaning of section 12022.6, subdivision (a)(1). The trial court sentenced appellant to a total of three years in state prison, consisting of the midterm of two years on count 1, plus one year pursuant to section 12022.6, subdivision (a)(1). The same three-year sentences were imposed on each of counts 3, 5, 6 and 7 and ordered to be served consecutively, and the remaining counts were dismissed. The trial court awarded appellant 561 days of presentence custody credit, consisting of 375 days of actual custody credit and 186 days of conduct credit. Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that he should have received 375 days of “one-for-one” conduct credit, for a total of 750 days of presentence credit. The People agree, and so do we. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 Appellant committed his crimes between January 6, 2006, and September 14, 2009. He was sentenced pursuant to his plea agreement on May 26, 2011. At that time, he had been in custody for 375 days, from May 16, 2010, through May 26, 2011, and the trial court granted him 375 days of custody credit. During the sentencing hearing, the parties disputed the calculation of conduct credit, and the trial court awarded 186 days of conduct credit. DISCUSSION Pursuant to section 2900.5, a defendant is entitled to receive presentence credit for all days of actual custody from the date of arrest through the date of sentencing. In addition, pursuant to section 4019, a defendant is entitled to receive presentence credit for