From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Prentice v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Oct 5, 2011
E054214 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 5, 2011)

Opinion

E054214 Super.Ct.No. SWF10000901 Super.Ct.No. SWF019595

10-05-2011

RYAN PRENTICE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.

Brandie Devall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, and Christopher P. Beesley, Deputy Attorney General, for Real Party in Interest.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

OPINION

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Angel M. Bermudez and Christian F. Thierbach, Judges. Petition granted.

Brandie Devall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, and Christopher P. Beesley, Deputy Attorney General, for Real Party in Interest.

The court has read and considered the petition for writ of mandate, the informal response filed by the Attorney General, and petitioner's reply. The Attorney General concedes petitioner is entitled to 85 days additional credit as he alleges. Petitioner's entitlement to relief is clear and undisputed and, thus, this court may grant relief without issuance of an alternative writ of mandate or an order to show cause. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.) Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandate is granted.

Although conceding petitioner's entitlement to additional credit, the Attorney General notes that petitioner's release date lies sometime in the future because he is serving a concurrent term of three years for a probation violation. Petitioner responds that the record does not reveal the amount of credits to which he is entitled in the probation violation matter (case no. SWF019595). We agree and conclude that the Superior Court of Riverside County will have to determine this when the matter is remanded.

DISPOSITION

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandate is granted. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to strike the award of 82 days of credit and instead award him 167 days of credit in case No. SWF10000901. The court shall also specify the amount of credits to which petitioner is entitled in the probation violation matter (case no. SWF019595), if it has not previously done so.

The abstract(s) of judgment should be corrected accordingly and copies forwarded to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

KING

Acting P. J.
We concur:

HOLLENHORST

J.

RICHLI

J.


Summaries of

Prentice v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Oct 5, 2011
E054214 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 5, 2011)
Case details for

Prentice v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty.

Case Details

Full title:RYAN PRENTICE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

Date published: Oct 5, 2011

Citations

E054214 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 5, 2011)