Defendant was entitled to enhanced credits under former Penal Code section 2933, subdivision (e) and trial court was authorized to award them. Tinker pled guilty to drug offenses. The court imposed a sentence, awarding half time credits. On appeal, Tinker claimed he was entitled to day-for-day credits under former Penal Code section 2933, subdivision (e). The Attorney General conceded his eligibility for the credits under that section, but claimed only CDCR had jurisdiction to award them. Held: Appellant awarded credits. Tinker’s offense occurred in February of 2011, at a time when the September 28, 2010 version of former section 2933, subdivision (e) was in effect. This provision allowed one-for-one credit for qualified defendants, like Tinker, who were sentenced to state prison. Unlike the circumstances discussed in footnote 11 in People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 318 (rejecting claim that CDCR violated section 2933, subd. (e) by not allowing day-for-day credits), here, Tinker asserted the trial court erred in not applying the appropriate section. There is no indication the Legislature intended CDCR to calculate presentence credit under former section 2933, subdivision (e), which is the duty of the trial court.