Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 06F10480
SCOTLAND, P. J.
Defendant Steven Richard Wolff pled no contest to driving with a blood alcohol content of.08 percent or higher (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)) and admitted that he had a prior conviction for the such an offense in 2004 (Veh. Code, § 23550.5) and had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
On appeal, defendant contends, and the People agree, that the matter must be remanded to the trial court to calculate additional custody credits and to correct the abstract of judgment.
DISCUSSION
When defendant entered his plea in this Sacramento County case, he was serving a prison term of three years for convictions in two Tulare County cases. Thus, the trial court sentenced him to eight months (one-third the middle term) for the driving under the influence of alcohol conviction, plus one year for the prior prison term enhancement, to run consecutively to the Tulare County prison term, for an aggregate term of four years eight months. The court calculated and awarded 103 days of custody credits in the Sacramento County case. Although the abstract of judgment lists the Tulare County case numbers, the abstract does not include the terms imposed in those cases and the aggregate term including the Sacramento County case.
California Rules of Court, rule 4.452 states in part: “If a determinate sentence is imposed under section 1170.1(a) consecutive to one or more determinate sentences imposed previously in the same court or in other courts, the court in the current case must pronounce a single aggregate term, as defined in section 1170.1(a), stating the result of combining the previous and current sentences. In those situations: [¶] (1) The sentences on all determinately sentenced counts in all of the cases on which a sentence was or is being imposed must be combined as though they were all counts in the current case....”
Here, the court correctly combined the sentences in the Tulare County cases and the Sacramento County case, and orally pronounced the aggregate term of four years eight months, as required. However, the abstract of judgment refers to the Tulare County cases only by numbers, not the terms imposed, and does not set forth the aggregate term including the Sacramento County case.
Moreover, California Rules of Court, rule 4.472 states: “At the time of sentencing, the court must cause to be recorded on the judgment or commitment the total time in custody to be credited on the sentence under sections 2900.5, 2933.1(c), and 2933.2(c).”
Here, the court awarded presentence credits in the Sacramento County case but did not calculate credits attributable to the Tulare County cases and include those on the abstract of judgment. (See People v. Lacebal (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1061, 1065-1066.)
Thus, we must remand the matter to the trial court to correct the aforesaid omissions. (People v. Lacebal, supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1065-1066.)
For guidance on remand, “credit shall be given only where the custody to be credited is attributable to proceedings related to the same conduct for which the defendant has been convicted. Credit shall be given only once for a single period of custody attributable to multiple offenses for which a consecutive sentence is imposed.” (Pen. Code, § 2900.5, subd. (b).) In multiple proceedings leading to terms which are consolidated pursuant to Penal Code section 669, the “attributable” limitation still applies. The credits are not reallocated, but remain assigned only to the proceedings in which they were earned. (People v. Lacebal, supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at p. 1066.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed, except that the matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to (1) recalculate custody credits to include credits available to defendant in the Tulare County cases, (2) amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the custody credits awarded in each case, the prison terms imposed on the Tulare County cases, and the total aggregate prison term, and (3) send a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: SIMS, J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.