Opinion
B225315
08-17-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERTO SANCHEZ PANAMENO, Defendant and Appellant.
Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, James Williams Bilderack II and Idan Ivri, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. TA093215/ TA093286)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Eleanor J. Hunter, Judge. Affirmed.
Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, James Williams Bilderack II and Idan Ivri, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Roberto Sanchez Panameno appeals from a sentence of three years,eight months in state prison for burglary and vandalism. He contends the trial court erred in not awarding him additional presentence custody credits under Penal Code section 4019. Finding no error, we affirm.
All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In October 2007, appellant pled guilty to one count of second degree burglary in case no. TA093215. The next month, he pled no contest to one count of vandalism in case no. TA093286. Imposition of sentence was suspended in both cases, and appellant was placed on probation. Appellant violated his probation three times over the next two years. After the third time, the trial court sentenced appellant to three years on the burglary count and eight months on the vandalism count. The court awarded 132 days of conduct credit pursuant to section 4019. For days in custody prior to January 25, 2010, the court awarded custody credits under the former version of section 4019. For days in custody afterwards, the court awarded custody credits under the 2010 amendments to section 4019, which were effective as of January 25, 2010. Appellant filed timely notices of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends the trial court should have calculated all of his custody credits under the 2010 amendments to section 4019 as those amendments apply retroactively. This court has previously rejected appellant's argument. The California Supreme Court has granted review of that decision. (See People v. Eusebio (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 990, review granted September 22, 2010, S184957.) Pending the Supreme Court's resolution of this issue, we see no reason to reconsider our prior decision. Thus, we reject appellant's claim for additional presentence custody credits.
DISPOSITION
The sentence is affirmed without prejudice to any relief that appellant may be entitled to obtain should the California Supreme Court conclude that the 2010 amendments to section 4019 apply retroactively.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
MANELLA, J. We concur: EPSTEIN, P. J. WILLHITE, J.