Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County Nos. SCS233335, SCD219737, Esteban Hernandez, Judge.
McINTYRE, J.
In case number SCD219737, Marvin Mackenzie Conner entered a negotiated guilty plea to evading an officer with reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)) for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1); all further statutory references are to the Penal Code). In May 2009 the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Conner on three years' probation, imposed a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and suspended a $200 probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44).
In August 2010, in case number SCS233335, Conner entered a negotiated guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)) for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The court revoked probation in case number SCD219737 and sentenced Conner to 21 years in prison: a stipulated sentence consisting of the 11-year upper term for voluntary manslaughter and 10 years for the gang enhancement in case number SCS233335; and a concurrent sentence in case number SCD219737. In case number SCD219737, the court imposed a $700 restitution fine and suspended a $700 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45). Conner appeals.
Conner contends the $700 restitution fine must be stricken and the $200 restitution fine reinstated, and the $700 parole revocation fine must be reduced to $200. The People properly concede the point. (People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819; People v. Downey (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 899, 921-922; People v. Johnson (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 284, 306-308.) Additionally, the record does not reflect that the court lifted the stay on the $200 probation revocation fine. The abstract of judgment must be modified accordingly. (People v. Guiffre (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 430.)
Conner also contends he is entitled to one additional day of custody credit in case number SCD219737, representing the time he spent in custody from the day of his arrest until his booking the next day. The People concede the point. Both Conner and the People are incorrect. Conner is not entitled to the extra day of credit as "custody credits are to be given for time spent within a residential detention facility, not for merely being in the custody of police." (People v. Ravaux (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 914, 920; accord, People v. Macklem (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 674, 702.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to reflect that the $700 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) is stricken, the $700 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45) is reduced to $200 and the suspended $200 probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44) is now due. The $200 restitution fine remains. The judgment is affirmed as modified. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting the modification and to forward the amended abstract to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
WE CONCUR: NARES, Acting P. J., AARON, J.