Opinion
G055146
06-28-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TYRONE JONES, Defendant and Appellant.
William Paul Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel and Tami Falkenstein Hennick, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 16CF3213) OPINION Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Cheri T. Pham, Judge. Affirmed as modified. William Paul Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel and Tami Falkenstein Hennick, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. THE COURT:
Before Aronson, Acting P.J., Ikola, J., and Goethals, J.
Defendant Tyrone Jones pleaded guilty to human trafficking with the intent to commit pimping and pandering (Pen. Code, §§ 236.1, subd. (b), 266); pimping (§ 266h, subd. (a)); pandering by procuring (§ 266i, subd. (a)(1)); and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). In connection with the first count, defendant admitted that he personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim. (§ 236.4, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 10 years and four months in prison.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the court erred by limiting his conduct credits pursuant to section 2933.1, which resulted in him being awarded 20 days conduct credit rather than 132 days conduct credit. The Attorney General concedes error and that this court should modify the judgment to reflect the correct number of conduct credits (132 days).
We agree with the parties' analysis. Section 2933.1, subdivision (a), limits the accrual of conduct credits for "any person who is convicted of a felony offense listed in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 . . . ." None of the counts to which defendant pleaded guilty is listed among the 23 categories set forth in section 667.5, subdivision (c). Defendant's admission that he inflicted great bodily injury pursuant to section 236.4, subdivision (b), seemingly fits into the spirit of one category. (See § 667.5, subd. (c)(8) ["Any felony in which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury on any person other than an accomplice which has been charged and proved as provided for in Section 12022.7, 12022.8, or 12022.9 . . . ."].) But the plain language of the statute omits great bodily injury enhancements pursuant to section 236.4.
In the absence of the section 2933.1 limitation, defendant accrued two days of conduct credit for every two days of actual custody under section 4019, subdivision (f). (See People v. Hul (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 182, 185-187.) He was therefore entitled to 132 days of conduct credit.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to award defendant 132 days of conduct credit pursuant to section 4019. The judgment is affirmed as modified. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.