People v. Harris CA4/1

DISCUSSION

I

THE PRISON PRIOR

At the time of sentencing the trial court decided not to impose a consecutive term

for the prison prior admitted by Harris. The court stayed the term for that prior. The

parties properly agree the court may not stay the sentence on an enhancement in lieu of

striking it. (People v. Langston (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1237, 1241; People v. Campbell

(1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 305, 311.) Accordingly, we will remand the case to the trial court

with directions to strike the prison prior and to amend the abstract of judgment

accordingly.

II

CUSTODY CREDITS

Harris contends the trial court erred in the calculation of credits, in that it did not

start the calculation with the date of the release of his parole hold, but instead began the

calculation with the following day. The People recognize that Harris would ordinarily be

entitled to the extra day credit, however the People contend that Harris has forfeited the

issue by failing to raise it in the trial court.

Harris was in custody on a parole hold at the time of his pretrial incarceration in

this case. The parole hold was apparently based on conduct unrelated to the pending

3 charges. The parole hold was…