Does a probation officer miscalculate the amount of good conduct credit awarded to a defendant under section 2931 of the California Probation Code?

Defendant also argues that he is entitled to additional presentence credits because the probation officer miscalculated the number of days served on the parole revocation term. Although the objection was not raised below, this argument is not waived because "[t]he failure to award an adequate amount of credits is a jurisdictional error which may be raised at any time." (People v. Acosta (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 411, 428, fn. 8.) The probation report indicates that 221 days of defendant's custody was attributable to the revocation term. Under section 2931, defendant was entitled to a reduction for good behavior of the time served on the probation revocation term of one third of the 11 month (330 day) sentence, meaning that 220 days, rather than 221 days, should be the number of days attributable to the revocation term (330 days minus 110 days). The balance of presentence time in custody on the current offense therefore should have been 116 days, rather than 115 as the probation report stated. "Under section 4019, presentence conduct credit is calculated 'by dividing the number of days spent in custody by four and

Page 6

rounding down to the nearest whole number. This number is then multiplied by two and the total added to the original number of days spent in custody.' " (People v. Williams (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1176, fn. 14.) Using this calculation defendant should have been credited with 58 days, rather than 56 days, of conduct credit (116 days of actual time divided by four is 29 days, multiplied by two is 58 days). The abstract of judgment should be amended to reflect additional presentence credit of three days, i.e., 116 days of time served plus 58 days of good conduct credit, or a total of 174 days presentence credit. Upper term

Defendant also argues that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to the upper term of three years. "A trial court's decision to impose a particular sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal 'unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.' " (People v. Jones (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 853, 860.)