People v. Pirtle CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD243096, SCN312679
- Trial judge
- Dwayne K. Moring
- Outcome
- modified — Judgment affirmed as modified.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- McINTYRE (author), Alex C. McDonald, Richard D. Huffman, Sr.
Analysis
The trial court erroneously calculated the defendant's presentence custody credits by treating two separate cases independently rather than aggregating the actual days in custody. The Court of Appeal modified the judgment to reflect the correct total of 160 days of presentence custody credits and affirmed the judgment as modified.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Calculation of presentence custody credits“the trial court erroneously calculated his total presentence custody credits by calculating the actual custody credits and conduct credits for his two cases separately, rather than adding the actual custody credits for his two cases together and then calculating his conduct credits based on the aggregate number of actual custody credits.” | unclear | error | agree with court The appellate court correctly identified that the trial court failed to aggregate actual custody days across multiple cases before calculating conduct credits, which is required by law. The court applied the correct statutory formula and case law to determine the proper credit amount. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Culp (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1278 — Trial courts must aggregate actual days in custody across multiple cases when calculating presentence custody credits.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the established legal principle from People v. Culp regarding the aggregation of custody days and the statutory formula for conduct credits. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the conceded error without unnecessary complexity.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court, after Pirtle pleaded guilty in two cases to possessing a controlled substance for sale and was sentenced to five years in local custody, calculated his presentence actual and conduct credits separately for each case. On appeal, with the Attorney General conceding, the Court of Appeal held the actual days must be aggregated (80 days) with conduct credits computed on the aggregate under Penal Code section 4019, subdivision (f), modified the judgment to reflect 160 days of total presentence credit, and otherwise affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Calculation of presentence custody credits separately for each of the two cases rather than aggregating actual custody days and computing conduct credits on the aggregate“The trial court was required to aggregate the actual days in custody, resulting in an award of 80 days of actual custody credits.” | unclear | error (law misapplied) | agree with court The opinion does not state a standard of review, but credit calculation under section 4019 is a question of law. Culp holds that when a defendant is sentenced in multiple cases, actual days are aggregated before conduct credit is computed; under the two-for-two formula of amended section 4019(f), 80 actual days yield 80 conduct days, so 160 total is arithmetically correct. The People conceded the error and the reasoning and authority support the result. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Culp (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1278 — When a defendant is sentenced in multiple cases, actual presentence custody days are aggregated and conduct credits are computed on the aggregate rather than separately per case.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court identified the single issue, applied Culp and amended section 4019(f) to the undisputed day counts, and reached the correct arithmetic result that both parties agreed on. The opinion is brief and does not state a standard of review, but no argument or authority was left unaddressed.
Opinion
Filed 11/12/13 P. v. Pirtle 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, D063488
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD243096, v. SCN312679)
RICKY DON PIRTLE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Judgment affirmed as modified.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C.
Ragland and Jennifer B. Truong, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Ricky Don Pirtle appeals after he pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a controlled substance for sale in two separate cases (SCD243096, SCN312679).
He received a total term of five years in local custody. He contends, the Attorney General concedes, and we agree that the trial court erroneously calculated his total presentence custody credits by calculating the actual custody credits and conduct credits for his two cases separately, rather than adding the actual custody credits for his two cases together and then calculating his conduct credits based on the aggregate number of actual custody credits.
DISCUSSION
Pirtle served 57 and 23 actual days in custody, respectively, in case numbers SCD243096 and SCN312679. The trial court was required to aggregate the actual days in custody, resulting in an award of 80 days of actual custody credits. (People v. Culp (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1278, 1283–1284.) Applying the two days of presentence conduct credits for every two-day period of confinement calculation under amended Penal Code section 4019, subdivision (f), Pirtle should be awarded 80 days of conduct credits, for a total of 160 days of presentence custody credits. Accordingly, the judgment must be modified to reflect a total of 160 days of presentence custody credits.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to reflect a total of 160 days of presentence custody credit. The clerk of the superior court is directed to prepare an amended 2 abstract of judgment and forward a copy to the appropriate authorities. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
MCINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
MCDONALD, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Culp F038699 · 2002-08-07