People v. Orozco CA2/6
Filed 1/12/24 P. v. Orozco CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B327776 (Super. Ct. No. 2020014067) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)
v.
JOSE LUIS OROZCO,
Defendant and Appellant.
Jose Luis Orozco appeals from the order denying his request for custody credits. He contends, and the Attorney General concedes, the trial court erred when it denied credits for the time he spent in a residential treatment program. We reverse and order that Orozco receive an additional 259 days of custody credits. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In October 2021, Orozco pleaded guilty to unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced him to three years in state prison, suspended execution of the sentence, and placed Orozco on two
years of formal probation with terms and conditions, including that he serve 365 days in county jail. During sentencing, the prosecutor informed the court that Orozco would enroll in a residential treatment program at the Salvation Army’s facility in Santa Monica. The trial court “ordered [Orozco] to be transported first to the probation department and then to the Salvation Army Santa Monica facility[,] where he [was] to remain in the program.” It also ordered Orozco to “follow all [probation department] directions regarding his place of employment, his place of residence, [and] any treatment or . . . programs . . . they think . . . appropriate for him while he’s on probation.” The trial court ordered Orozco to complete the Salvation Army residential treatment program, and instructed him to report to the probation department if he left the program so it could figure out “what . . . to do next.” The court asked Orozco to waive confidentiality: “The program at Salvation Army is something that is usually private or confidential to you, but because it has to with your release from custody and your sentencing, you agree that the program may communicate with the [c]ourt, if necessary, and the probation department, if necessary, regarding your progress. Do you understand?” Orozco said he did. The court granted him 261 days of custody and conduct credits, and stayed the remainder of his jail sentence pending completion of the program. In February 2023, defense counsel told the trial court that Orozco had completed the Salvation Army program and was requesting 259 days of additional custody credits for the period December 1, 2021, to August 17, 2022. The court said it normally told defendants who choose a residential treatment program that
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)