People v. Dye CA6

Filed 10/10/24 P. v. Dye CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H051343 (Santa Cruz County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 22CR01273)

v.

AARON BENJAMIN DYE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Aaron Benjamin Dye appeals from an order denying him conduct credits for time participating in a privately-run electronic home monitoring program. The Penal Code authorizes conduct credits to individuals participating in detention programs that meet certain statutory criteria and are authorized by the relevant county. (Penal Code, § 4019, subd. (a)(7) [authorizing credits for participation in home detention programs under section 1203.016].1) While Dye did not participate in an authorized home detention program, he contends that he was detained under an equivalent program and that denial of conduct credits for participating in that program violates equal protection. We conclude that the Legislature had a rational basis for awarding conduct credits only to individuals in authorized home detention programs. We therefore affirm the order denying Dye’s request for conduct credits.

1 Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

I. BACKGROUND In January 2023, Dye was charged with one count each of possession of a controlled substance with a firearm (Health & Safety Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)), possession of an assault weapon (§ 30605, subd. (a)), and possession of a controlled substance (Health & Safety Code, § 11377.) Dye pleaded no contest to the first charge in exchange for dismissal of the two remaining charges. The trial court sentenced Dye to 24 months supervised probation conditioned on 180 days in jail. The court credited Dye with one day already served and authorized Dye to serve the jail sentence on electronic home monitoring: specifically, the Custody Alternative Program (CAPS) operated by the sheriff’s office. During the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated that it authorized Dye to serve his sentence “on CAPS or private monitoring” and directed him to “have it set up with CAPS or show proof to the Court that you’re signed up with Options or the other organization.” Although Dye attempted to enroll in CAPS, he was told that the did not qualify. Consequently, on August 10, 2023, Dye enrolled instead in Options, a private electronic monitoring program. On August 15, 2023, the sentencing court confirmed with Dye’s probation officer that Options was an acceptable electronic monitoring program. On September 11, 2023, Dye filed a motion to modify his sentence, requesting that the trial court grant him conduct credits under section 4019 for time spent in the Options electronic home monitoring program. In support, Dye asserted that the program terms for CAPS and Options were substantially the same (i.e., equally custodial), that Options met the minimum requirements of section 1203.016, and that denial of section 4019 conduct credits would violate state and federal equal protection clauses. During the hearing on his motion, Dye argued that he was similarly situated to individuals participating in CAPS, that the jail had “become much more strict about who they will allow in and out of ankle monitoring,” and that “Option’s guidelines are just as