People v. Ramsey CA3

Filed 3/15/23 P. v. Ramsey CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C095822

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 06F07860)

v.

ERIC RAMSEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

The trial court granted defendant Eric Ramsey’s motion to correct his custody credits, and then issued an abstract of judgment that reflected only his credits as of the date of his original sentencing, rather than as of the date of the correction. On appeal, defendant argues he is entitled to an amended abstract of judgment that reflects the interim custody credits to which he was entitled at the time his sentence was modified, consistent with People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20. The Attorney General agrees,

1

and we agree with the parties. We remand the case for recalculation of defendant’s current custody credits and the issuance of an amended abstract of judgment. BACKGROUND The factual details of this case are not relevant to the issue on appeal; it suffices to say that in 2008, a jury found defendant guilty of murder (Pen. Code1, § 187; count one), robbery (§ 211; count two), fraudulent use of a credit card (§ 484g, subd. (a); counts three through six), and attempted fraudulent use of a credit card (§§ 664, 484g, subd. (a); count seven). The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life in state prison and awarded him 645 days of credit for actual time served. We affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Ramsey (Sept. 4, 2009, C059245) [nonpub. opn.].) In October 2021, defendant filed a motion to recalculate his custody credits, asserting as relevant here that at the time of his 2008 sentencing he was entitled to 646 days--rather than 645 days--of credit for actual custody. The trial court acknowledged that the previous award of 645 days should be corrected to 646 days and, accordingly, granted defendant’s the motion in relevant part. The court then issued an amended abstract of judgment, nunc pro tunc to the original resentencing date, which listed an award of 646 days of actual custody credit. Defendant filed a notice of appeal. While the appeal was pending, appellate counsel sent a letter to the trial court requesting an amended abstract of judgment that reflected defendant’s actual custody credits as of the date the trial court had corrected defendant’s sentence, citing People v. Buckhalter, supra, 26 Cal.4th 20. The letter argued the change in credits had been a correction of a judicial error, and not just a clerical correction, and that the amended abstract of judgment should thus reflect the additional actual custody credits defendant had accrued up to the time of the correction. In August 2022, the trial court issued an