P. v. Canady CA2/4

Filed 6/19/13 P. v. Canady CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B239609

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA298800)

v.

JEROME CANADY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jose I. Sandoval, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. Meredith J. Watts, 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, Eric E. Reynolds and Esther P. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________________________

Appellant Jerome Canady appeals from the court’s sentencing determinations. He contends the court erred in imposing multiple statutory enhancement provisions for the same two prior offenses. In the alternative, he argues the court abused its discretion in deciding to impose two one-year enhancements for his prior prison terms pursuant to 1 Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), in addition to three five-year enhancements under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), which were ordered by this court in a prior unpublished opinion. Appellant contends the court also erred in failing to recalculate his credits and to take into consideration the time he served prior to resentencing. Respondent agrees that the enhancements were imposed improperly and that the court should have recalculated his credits, including the actual days in custody up to the time of resentencing. We shall direct the trial court to strike the two one-year enhancements that were imposed under section 667.5, subdivision (b), and remand the case to that court for recalculation of presentence credits. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY According to the charging information, on February 25, 2006, appellant reached into a woman’s car and grabbed her purse. Appellant was later taken into custody and charged with second degree robbery. (§ 211.) The information further alleged that appellant suffered three prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and 11 prior “strike” convictions (§§ 1170.12, 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The information also alleged appellant had served three prior separate prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). In December 2007, a jury found appellant guilty of the robbery charge. The jury also found he had suffered five prior felony convictions and served three prior prison terms for those convictions. Appellant was sentenced to 25 years to life, and the court imposed, but stayed, the sentence enhancements. He filed a timely appeal.