C.A. 4th;
D070477

The Fourth Appellate District reversed a judgment with directions. The court held that the trial court's confusion over the correct calculation of the defendant's custody credits did not give it authority to eliminate one of the sentences agreed to in the parties' plea bargain.

Marsha Woods was on probation for two prior offenses when she was arrested and charged with five theft- and drug-related offenses. Under a plea agreement, she agreed to plead guilty to one count of attempted burglary and admit one strike prior, and to serve concurrent sentences of 16 months on the current offense and seven years on each of the probation cases. In exchange, the prosecution agreed to dismiss the remaining charges and allegations. The trial court accepted the plea. At sentencing, however, after expressing frustration at the parties' disagreement over the proper calculation of custody credits, the trial court sentenced Woods to 16 months for the current offense and terminated probation on her earlier cases, reasoning the stipulated seven-year sentences on the probation cases were “just about eaten up by credits.”