When appellant is sentenced to state prison and there is then a limited remand of the case for correction of sentencing errors, there is no need to recalculate presentence credits. Appellant was sentenced to state prison and awarded 50 days of presentence credits. On appeal, he claimed that the trial court erred when it found it lacked discretion in the setting of the restitution fine. The appellate court agreed and remanded to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion. The trial court subsequently reduced the fine to $200. At this subsequent remand hearing, appellant contended that presentence credits should be calculated from the date of his initial custody to the date of the second sentence and that he was entitled to day-for-day credits pursuant to amended Penal Code section 4019, the statute having been amended prior to the date the case was heard on remand. The trial court denied the request. The appellate court agreed, finding that under People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20 and Penal Code section 2900.1, recalculation of presentence credits on remand is required only when remand results in modification of the sentence. Since the sentence was not modified in appellant’s case, Penal Code section 2900.1 did not apply and there was no need for recalculation of credits. With this finding, the court did not reach the issue as to whether appellant was entitled to day for day conduct credits for the initial presentence custody credit award. The dissent found appellant was entitled to day-for-day conduct credits from the initial custody date to the initial sentencing date and that the trial court should have calculated actual days of credit from the initial date to the second sentencing date because the restitution fine was part of the sentence and its modification modified the sentence.