P. v. Arnold CA6

Filed 6/7/13 P. v. Arnold CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H037541 & H038656 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. Nos. CC817207 & CC775045) v.

DOYLE ORLANDO ARNOLD,

Defendant and Appellant.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE In H037541, defendant Doyle Orlando Arnold appeals from a judgment entered after the court revoked probation and sentenced him in two separate cases to concurrent terms of two years. In H038656, defendant appeals from a post-judgment order denying his request for additional presentence conduct credit.1 On appeal, he claims that he is entitled to additional presentence conduct credit. We disagree and affirm the judgment and post-judgment order. II. BACKGROUND On August 29, 2007, in superior court case No. CC775045, defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance, being under the influence of a controlled substance, and possession of narcotics paraphernalia, and he admitted a prior prison term

1 This court ordered the appeals be considered together.

allegation. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11350, subd. (a), 11550, subd. (a), 11364; Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).)2 The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation. On October 23, 2008, in superior court case No. CC817207, defendant pleaded no contest to passing bad checks and admitted a prior prison term allegation. (§ 476a.) Again, the court suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation. On May 22, 2011, defendant returned to custody due to a probation violation. On July 13, 2011, defendant admitted the violation. The court terminated probation and sentenced him in both cases to concurrent terms of two years. Concerning credit, the court in case No. CC775045 granted him 176 days of presentence custody credit and 113 days of conduct credit. The conduct credit consisted of 60 days calculated under former section 4019 for the 123 days he spent in custody before January 25, 2010; and 53 days calculated under former section 2933 for the 53 days he spent in custody after September 28, 2010. In case No. CC817207, the court granted defendant 300 days of presentence custody credit and 175 days of conduct credit. The conduct credit consisted of 122 days calculated under former section 4019 for the 247 days he spent in custody before January 25, 2010; and 53 days of credit calculated under former section 2933 for the 53 days he spent in custody after September 28, 2010. After appealing from the judgment (H037541), defendant filed a motion in the trial court seeking additional conduct credit. The court denied the motion. In August 2012, defendant appealed from the order denying his motion.