In People v. Thornburg (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1173, on the defendant's first appeal, the appellate court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing in light of the holding in People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th at page 514. On remand, the court reimposed the original four-year prison term, but "denied the defendant's request for additional custody credits and a new abstract of judgment." (People v. Thornburg, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 1175.) On the second appeal, the court reversed and held as follows: "it is the duty of the sentencing court to calculate actual days spent in custody pursuant to section 2900.5, subdivision (d). This includes time spent in jail pending resentencing. (People v. Chew (1985) 172 Cal. App. 3d 45, 50, 217 Cal. Rptr. 805 . . . .) It is the sole province of the CDC to determine prison behavior and work credits. (Ibid.; see also People v. Robinson (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1257-1258 . . . .) Thus, the trial court should have calculated the total number of actual days spent in custody, whether jail or prison, added the appropriate number of section 4019 conduct credits, and issued an amended abstract." (Id. at pp. 1175-1176.) Thus, Thornburg simply followed Chew. Although the Thornburg court ordered the trial court to determine the number of days spent in custody, "whether in jail or prison," and award "an appropriate number of" section 4019 credits, nothing in Thornburg indicates that "appropriate number of section 4019" credits should reflect days of prison confinement.