P. v. Baca CA1/3
Filed 7/25/13 P. v. Baca CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A136662 v. THEODORE GUY BACA, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. H51043) Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Theodore Guy Baca was confined to county jail as a condition of probation and awarded conduct credit for time served in custody between his arrest and disposition. (Pen. Code, § 4019.)1 Under the current statutory provision, which was in effect at the time defendant was awarded credits, the rate at which conduct credits are awarded is determined by the date a crime is committed with a higher rate applied to crimes committed on or after October 1, 2011. (§ 4019, subd. (h); Stats. 2011-2012, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 12, § 35.) Defendant’s crime was committed before this date, making him ineligible for enhanced credits. He contends that this disparate treatment violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. (U.S. Const., 5th & 14th Amends.) With some misgivings, we reject the contention and shall affirm the order.
STATEMENT OF FACTS On July 22, 2011, defendant tried to purchase a motorcycle with a forged check. He pleaded no contest to forgery (§ 470, subd. (d)) and admitted serving a prior prison
1 All further section references are to the Penal Code except as noted.
1
term (§ 667.5). In exchange for his plea, other charges were dismissed and defendant was granted probation. Defendant was arrested a year later on suspicion of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851) and charged with violating his probation. Defendant admitted the probation violation and probation was reinstated on condition that he serve nine months in county jail. Defendant was awarded custody credit of 27 days and conduct credit of 13 days for time served between his arrest on July 21, 2012, and disposition on August 16, 2012.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)