Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. CRF066323
RAYE, J.Defendant Daman Rahal was sentenced by the Yolo County Superior Court to state prison for 10 years following his plea to robbery, his admission of a prior serious felony strike conviction, and his resentencing on a prior robbery conviction in Solano County. On appeal, defendant contends that remand to the trial court is required for the court to determine his presentence custody credits and to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting those credits. We shall remand the matter with directions.
All relevant hearings were conducted before the Honorable Judge David Rosenberg.
On October 29, 2007, in the Yolo County Superior Court, defendant entered a negotiated settlement whereby he pled guilty to second degree robbery and admitted a prior serious felony conviction, which constituted both a strike and a five-year enhancement, in exchange for a nine-year prison sentence. It was further understood that defendant would be resentenced to one year in prison for a robbery conviction from Solano County, to be served consecutively to the nine-year term in Yolo County.
Defendant had been sentenced on February 26, 2007, for the Solano County robbery conviction.
On December 21, 2007, the 10-year sentence was imposed; however, the determination of presentence custody credits could not be made because it was unknown what credits defendant was entitled to in Solano County. The court ordered that a postsentence probation report regarding presentence custody credit be submitted by January 23, 2008. The court added that this was “not a court appearance.”
An abstract of judgment for the December 21, 2007, sentencing was filed on December 26, 2007. The abstract contains no custody credits; instead, it refers to the postsentence report to be filed by January 23, 2008.
On January 23, 2008, the postsentence report was filed with the court. That report lists defendant’s credit “as of: 1/23/08” to be 452 days for both the Yolo and Solano County cases. However, attached to this report is a “Memorandum,” dated February 1, 2008, and stamped “filed” on February 7, 2008, which calculates defendant’s credits for both counties as 217 days. At the bottom of the first page of the Memorandum is the following handwritten note: “Addendum to post-sentence report filed 1-23-08; I order 4 days credit.” The addendum is dated “2-7-08” and is signed by Judge David Rosenberg.
The attachment to the memorandum contains a mathematical error. As to the Solano County credits, the probation department added 146 days of actual credit to 72 days of Penal Code section 4019 credit for a total of 213 days. The actual total is 218 days.
On January 23, 2008, the court received a letter from defense counsel dated January 22, 2008, submitting calculations showing that defendant was entitled to 834 days of presentence credit.
Also in the record is a report from the Yolo County Probation Department, dated November 28, 2007; stamped “received” by the Yolo County Superior Court on November 30, 2007; and stamped “filed” by the Yolo County Superior Court on December 27, 2007, which was six days after the December 21 sentencing. This report calculates defendant’s Yolo County credit as 4 days, his Solano County credit as 284 days, and his Penal Code section 4019 credit as 44 days, for a total of 332 days of credit.
In response to defendant’s motion to augment the record on appeal with “the Amended Abstract of Judgment filed on a date later than January 23, 2008,” the Clerk of the Yolo County Superior Court sent a declaration dated March 2, 2009, to this court stating no such amended abstract of judgment had been filed.
DISCUSSION
Penal Code section 2900.5, subdivision (d) provides: “It shall be the duty of the court imposing the sentence to determine the date or dates of any admission to, and release from, custody prior to sentencing and the total number of days to be credited pursuant to this section. The total number of days to be credited shall be contained in the abstract of judgment provided for in Section 1213.”
The only abstract of judgment filed fails to show any presentence credits, and the court’s handwritten “Addendum” to the probation officer’s February 1, 2008, “Memorandum” is wholly inadequate for the purposes of Penal Code section 2900.5, subdivision (d). Defendant is entitled to know the bases for the trial court’s determination of his presentence credit and to dispute them if he is in disagreement. (Pen. Code, § 1237.1.)
The People offer their own calculation of defendant’s presentence credits. However, because this calculation is statutorily placed squarely with the trial court, not the People, we shall remand the matter for the court to make that determination.
DISPOSITION
The matter is remanded to the Yolo County Superior Court with directions to determine defendant’s presentence custody credits, to make a record capable of review, to prepare an amended abstract of judgment including the presentence custody determination, and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: SIMS, Acting P. J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.