The requirement that errors in the calculation of presentence credits be presented to the trial court before being raised on appeal (Pen. Code, § 1237.1) does not apply where appellant challenges more than mathematical or clerical errors. Appellant was charged by a July 8, 2010 information with various domestic violence offenses. On November 4, 2010 he pled no contest to spousal battery (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422) and false imprisonment (Pen. Code, § 236). He was sentenced to prison on July 22, 2011 and awarded presentence credits of 201 actual days and 100 days of conduct credit. On appeal, he argued that he was entitled to additional custody credits under the October 1, 2011 amendment to section 4019 based on equal protection principles. The Attorney General argued the appeal should be dismissed because appellant failed to file the requisite motion in the trial court to correct the calculation of credits. Held: Both arguments rejected. Section 1237.1 requires a defendant to ask the trial court to correct an error in the calculation of presentence credits, as a prerequisite to raising the issue on appeal. The legislative history of section 1237.1 reflects it was aimed at requiring correction of mathematical or clerical errors in “calculation of presentence credits in the trial court to prevent misuse of appellate process for ministerial purposes.” Determining which version of a statute applies to a given defendant is different than requesting correction of a mathematical error and the issue may be raised on appeal without having first been presented to the trial court. [Note: In the unpublished portion of the opinion, the court declined to apply the October 1, 2011 amendment to section 4019 to appellant.]