California Court of Appeal Jan 26, 2024 No. E080980Unpublished
Filed 1/26/24 P. v. Hernandez CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E080980
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1701765)
RAUL HERNANDEZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Thomas E. Kelly, Judge.
(Retired judge of the Santa Cruz Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Dismissed.
Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Andrew
Mestman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Raul Hernandez pled guilty to multiple counts of robbery and was sentenced to 30
years eight months in prison. The trial court granted Hernandez 2,083 days of actual
custody credit and 366 days of good time conduct credit. Upon being notified by the
prohibits an appeal that presents nothing more than “an error in ‘doing the math’ or . . .
an apparent oversight in an award of credits.” (Id. at p. 766.)
When the CDCR notified the trial court of the error in Hernandez’s sentence, the
court resentenced Hernandez but neglected to recalculate his custody credits. That is the
only error that Hernandez seeks to correct on appeal, and it is precisely the type of
oversight to which section 1237.1 applies. In section 1237.1, “presentence custody”
refers to any time spent in custody before imposition of the sentence against which the
time is to be credited. Hernandez is entitled to credit for all of his time in custody, but he
must first seek relief in the trial court if he has no other issue to raise on appeal.
5
(§ 1237.1.) Hernandez has not done that. Consequently, we lack jurisdiction and must
dismiss his appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MENETREZ J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
RAPHAEL J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the defendant failed to first move the trial court to correct an alleged error in the calculation of custody credits as required by Penal Code section 1237.1.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred by failing to award additional custody credits for time served between the original sentencing and resentencing.
Whether Penal Code section 1237.1 bars an appeal regarding custody credit calculation errors when the defendant has not first sought relief in the trial court.
Disposition. Dismissed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Because Hernandez did not first present the custody credits claim in the trial court, and he raises no other issues on appeal, we lack jurisdiction and therefore dismiss the appeal.”
“In section 1237.1, “presentence custody” refers to any time spent in custody before imposition of the sentence against which the time is to be credited.”
“Hernandez is entitled to credit for all of his time in custody, but he must first seek relief in the trial court if he has no other issue to raise on appeal.”