People v. Park CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD210936
- Trial judge
- Francis M. Devaney
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed, and remanded with directions.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Cynthia Aaron
Analysis
The trial court resentenced the defendant to 19 years but declined to calculate updated custody credits, instead imposing the sentence nunc pro tunc to the original sentencing date. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in all other respects but remanded with directions to calculate the proper custody credits.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Trial court's refusal to calculate updated custody credits and imposition of sentence nunc pro tunc to the original sentencing date.“The trial court is only required to calculate and award good behavior credits earned while confined in the county jail prior to the first commitment. (Id. at pp. 37-38.)” | de novo | error | agree with court agree with court |
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. Park (2013) 56 Cal.4th 782 — The prior appeal that affirmed the convictions but remanded the case for resentencing.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly identifies the legal standard from People v. Buckhalter requiring trial courts to recalculate custody credits upon resentencing. It accurately applies this standard to the trial court's failure to perform the calculation, leading to a necessary remand.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOn remand after the Supreme Court's decision in People v. Park, the trial court reduced Park's sentence to 19 years but declined to recalculate his custody credits as of the resentencing date, instead imposing the sentence nunc pro tunc to the original sentencing date and leaving the credit calculation to the state. The Court of Appeal, with the People conceding error, held under People v. Buckhalter that the trial court was required to recalculate and credit all actual time served, remanded with directions to calculate the credits and prepare an amended abstract of judgment, and otherwise affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Trial court's refusal on sentencing remand to calculate and award presentence and in-prison actual custody credits as of the resentencing date, imposing the sentence nunc pro tunc and leaving the calculation to the state“The trial court declined to calculate the total custody credits up to the time of resentencing. Instead the court imposed the new sentence "nunc pro tunc" to January 7, 2010, the date of the original sentence. The court determined the "state" could calculate the credits.” | de novo | error (law misapplied) | agree with court Buckhalter squarely holds that when a prison term already in progress is modified on appellate remand, the sentencing court must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time served in jail and prison; the trial court's nunc pro tunc approach delegating the task to CDCR is inconsistent with that duty, and the People conceded the error. The opinion correctly distinguishes actual custody credits (which the court must calculate) from post-commitment conduct credits (which remain with CDCR). |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20 — When a prison term already in progress is modified as a result of an appellate sentence remand, the sentencing court must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time the defendant has served in jail or prison; the court awards presentence conduct credits for county jail time before the first commitment, while post-commitment conduct credits are determined by the Department of Corrections.
- relied: People v. Park (2013) 56 Cal.4th 782 — Supreme Court decision affirming Park's convictions but remanding for resentencing, which triggered the resentencing proceeding at issue.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion applies the controlling Supreme Court authority, Buckhalter, which directly governs recalculation of custody credits upon sentencing remand, and the People conceded the error, so the result follows straightforwardly. The opinion is brief and does not discuss the propriety of the nunc pro tunc device or cite section 2900.1, but the disposition is correct and the directions on remand are adequate.
Opinion
Filed 7/17/14 P. v. Park 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, D064924
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD210936)
AARON SUNG-UK PARK,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Francis M.
Devaney, Judge. Affirmed, and remanded with directions.
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, A. Natasha Cortina and Ryan H.
Peeck, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2009, Aaron Sung-Uk Park was convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code,1 §§ 192 & 664), and assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)).
The court also found true a firearm enhancement under section 12022.5, subdivision (a)
as to each count. Park was originally sentenced to a determinate term of 24 years in prison.
The convictions were affirmed on appeal, however, the case was remanded for resentencing. (People v. Park (2013) 56 Cal.4th 782, 806.)
When Park was originally sentenced he was given 735 actual days and 110 days of conduct credits for total presentence custody credits of 845 days.
On remand the trial court reduced the total sentence to 19 years. The trial court declined to calculate the total custody credits up to the time of resentencing. Instead the court imposed the new sentence "nunc pro tunc" to January 7, 2010, the date of the original sentence. The court determined the "state" could calculate the credits.
Park appeals contending the trial court erred in declining to declare the amount of custody credits to be awarded as of the resentencing date. The People have filed a brief conceding the trial court erred. Both parties agree the case should be remanded for another resentencing. We agree the case must be remanded.
DISCUSSION
The Supreme Court has determined that it is the duty of a trial court to calculate custody credits upon sentencing remand. The court stated: "[W]hen a prison term 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 already in progress is modified as a 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." (People v. Buckhalter (2001)
26 Cal.4th 20, 29; italics omitted.) The trial court is only required to calculate and award good behavior credits earned while confined in the county jail prior to the first commitment. (Id. at pp. 37-38.)
DISPOSITION
The case is remanded to the trial court with directions to calculate Park's sentencing custody credits consistent with the requirements established in People v. Buckhalter, supra, 26 Cal.4th 20, 29-30. The court shall prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting the credit calculation and forward the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
AARON, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Park S193938 · 2013-05-13
- People v. Buckhalter S086220 · 2001-08-29