People v. Flores CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE385427
- Trial judge
- Robert O. Amador
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed and remanded with instructions.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Buchanan (author), Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court resentenced the defendant to 40 years to life but failed to recalculate presentence custody credits or issue an amended abstract of judgment. The Court of Appeal affirmed the sentence but remanded the case with instructions to recalculate credits and issue the corrected documents.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to recalculate presentence custody credits and issue an amended abstract of judgment upon resentencing“We agree. “[W]hen a prison term already in progress is modified as the result of an appellate sentence remand, the sentencing court must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time the defendant has already served, whether in jail or prison, and whether before or since he was originally committed and delivered to prison custody.” (Id. at p. 29.)” | unclear | error | agree with court The appellate court correctly identified that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory requirement to recalculate custody credits upon resentencing. The court applied the correct legal standard from People v. Buckhalter and properly remanded the case for the trial court to perform the calculation, as it is not the appellate court's function to correct clerical errors in credit computation. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20 — When a prison term is modified on remand, the sentencing court must recalculate and credit all actual time served against the modified sentence.
- relied: People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954 — It is not the proper function of the Court of Appeal to engage in the correction of clerical errors in the computation of credits.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the binding precedent from People v. Buckhalter to the specific facts of the resentencing. It appropriately declines to perform the credit calculation itself, citing People v. Fares, and instead remands to the trial court with clear instructions.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOn remand after the Court of Appeal vacated a gang enhancement, the trial court resentenced Hector Flores II to an aggregate 40 years to life for second degree murder with a firearm enhancement but did not recalculate or award his custody credits, and the minute order and record contain no updated credits or amended abstract of judgment. The Court of Appeal, in a memorandum opinion with the People conceding, held the resentencing court failed to comply with People v. Buckhalter, remanded for the trial court to recalculate credits between the October 12, 2021 sentencing and the January 18, 2024 resentencing and to issue an amended abstract and minute order, and otherwise affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Resentencing court's failure to recalculate and award actual custody credits (jail and prison time) after appellate remand and to reflect them in an amended abstract of judgment“Flores contends, and the People concede, that the resentencing court failed to comply with People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, because it did not determine the actual days Flores was in custody between his original sentencing in 2021 and his resentencing in 2024. We agree.” | unclear | error (law misapplied) | agree with court Buckhalter squarely holds that when a prison term in progress is modified on appellate remand, the sentencing court must recalculate and credit all actual time served, in jail or prison, before and after original commitment, and reflect it in a new abstract. The record shows the court promised to compute credits but the minute order is silent and no amended abstract exists, so the duty was unmet. The appellate court correctly declined to compute credits itself under Fares and remanded, a proper disposition. The opinion does not articulate a standard of review, though the question is essentially one of law and the People conceded. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20 — When a prison term already in progress is modified on appellate remand, the resentencing court must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time served, whether in jail or prison, and reflect the credits in a new abstract of judgment.
- relied: People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954 — It is not the proper function of the Court of Appeal to correct clerical errors in the computation of custody credits; that task belongs to the trial court.
- relied: People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847 — Appellate courts may resolve cases by memorandum opinion where the issues are straightforward and governed by settled law.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies Buckhalter's rule that a resentencing court must recalculate actual custody credits after remand and properly follows Fares in sending the computation back to the trial court rather than doing it on appeal. It does not expressly discuss Penal Code section 1237.1's requirement that a credits-only claim first be presented to the trial court, but it notes Flores filed two written requests that went unanswered, which adequately addresses that concern.
Opinion
Filed 1/30/26 P. v. Flores CA4/1 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D085151
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE385427)
HECTOR FLORES II,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert O. Amador, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with instructions. Richard J. Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Joshua Trinh, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 In 2021, a jury convicted Hector Flores II of second degree murder (Pen. Code,2 § 187) with true findings on firearm and gang enhancement allegations. The court sentenced Flores to 15 years to life for the second degree murder and a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the gun enhancement. Flores appealed the conviction. We vacated the gang enhancement finding and remanded for the prosecution to consider whether to retry the case. The prosecution declined to do so, and the case was set for resentencing. (Flores, supra, D079705.) On remand, the court held a resentencing hearing and again imposed an aggregate term of 40 years to life. The court stated it would “come up with [the updated credits] and give it to [the defendant].” The minute order, however, is silent as to credit for time served and the record does not include an amended abstract of judgment. Flores states that he filed written requests on March 10, 2025, and June 20, 2025 to recalculate his presentence custody credits and correct the record The record does not indicate the court has responded to these requests. Flores contends, and the People concede, that the resentencing court failed to comply with People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, because it did not determine the actual days Flores was in custody between his original 1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853–855.) Rather than restate the factual and procedural background of the case, we will assume familiarity with our prior opinion from Flores’s first appeal (People v. Flores (Jan. 18, 2024, D079705) [nonpub. opn.] (Flores)).
2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 sentencing in 2021 and his resentencing in 2024. We agree. “[W]hen a prison term already in progress is modified as the result of an appellate sentence remand, the sentencing court must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time the defendant has already served, whether in jail or prison, and whether before or since he was originally committed and delivered to prison custody.” (Id. at p. 29.) It is thus the resentencing court that must calculate Flores’s custody credits and award such credits in a new abstract of judgment. (Id. at p. 41; see also People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954, 959 [“we consider it not the proper function of the Court of Appeal to engage in this business of correction of clerical errors in the computation of credits”].)
3 DISPOSITION We remand to the trial court to recalculate Flores’s custody credits between the time of his original October 12, 2021 sentencing and his January 18, 2024 resentencing and to issue an amended abstract of judgment and minute order reflecting the additional credits. The trial court shall then forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. We otherwise affirm the judgment.
BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
KELETY, J.
HUFFMAN, J.* __________________ * Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Garcia F034831 · 2002-04-17
- People v. Buckhalter S086220 · 2001-08-29
- People v. Fares D017155 · 1993-06-21