People v. Howard CA3

Filed 2/6/24 P. v. Howard CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098307

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR2022-2142, CR2021-2809) v.

ANTWAIN TROY HOWARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

In November 2022, in case No. CR2022-2142 (the evading an officer case), defendant Antwain Troy Howard pled no contest to evading a peace officer with reckless driving and admitted an on-bail enhancement and an aggravating circumstance. That same day, in case No. CR2021-2809 (the stolen vehicle case), defendant pled no contest to felony receipt of a stolen vehicle. The parties agreed to two years’ probation with a five-year suspended sentence, consisting of three years for the evasion charge and two years for the receipt of a stolen vehicle charge.

1

In December 2022, the trial court ordered defendant to attend a residential substance abuse treatment program as a condition of his bail. In April 2023, the trial court sentenced defendant according to the terms of the plea deal and ordered defendant to serve 150 days in jail for the evading an officer case. The trial court further imposed two $300 restitution fines and two $300 probation revocation fines. During sentencing, defense counsel requested actual and conduct credits for the 90 days defendant had spent in a residential substance abuse treatment program (or 180 days total). The probation report stated that, in the stolen vehicle case, defendant had been incarcerated for one day in October 2021 and was entitled to one day of actual credit. In the evading an officer case, defendant had been incarcerated for two days in July 2022 and was entitled to two days actual and two days conduct credit (or four days total). Regarding defendant’s request for credit for the drug treatment program, the probation officer suggested that, if the treatment had been ordered as a condition of probation, defendant would only be entitled to actual credit and not conduct credit. But, if “the treatment was a condition of presentence release on bail, then he would be entitled to both conduct and actual credit.” The trial court denied defendant’s request and did not grant any custody credit, saying that defendant’s rehabilitative time was “incorporated in the court sentence at this time.” On appeal, defendant argues he is entitled to 90 days of actual credit and 90 days of conduct credit (or 180 days total) for the time he spent in drug treatment.1 He further argues he is entitled to credit for the time he spent in jail after his arrest. Defendant also asks us to remand the matter for the trial court to determine any monetary credit against