P.

facts underlying Sharif's offense crime are not relevant to the issues he raises in this appeal.

DISCUSSION

I. PRESENTENCE CUSTODY CREDITS

Sharif first contends the court miscalculated his presentence custody credits and

should have awarded him an additional 78 days of conduct credit (for a total of 672 days,

not 594 days, of presentence custody credit) because it erroneously failed to use a hybrid

calculation method he claims the court was required to use to calculate his credits for the

presentence custody time he served on and after October 1, 2011, the operative date of an

amendment to section 4019 that increased the conduct credit accrual rate from one day of

conduct credit for every two days actually served─which the parties agree was the accrual

rate that applied to the presentence custody time he served from the time of his arrest on

February 4, 2011, to October 1, 2011, the operative date of the statutory amendment─to

one day of conduct credit for every one day actually served. Specifically, Sharif contends

the court erroneously failed to apply this more favorable one-for-one conduct credit

accrual rate to the presentence custody time he served…