P. v. Vega CA3

Filed 8/8/13 P. v. Vega CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C071069

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CRF102728, CRF064317, CRF060997) v.

ARTURO COX VEGA,

Defendant and Appellant.

In August 2006, defendant Arturo Cox Vega pleaded no contest to assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a); unless otherwise stated, section references that follow are to the Penal Code) in case No. 06-0997, and attempted second degree robbery (§§ 664, 211, 212.5, subd. (c)) in case No. 06-4317. Defendant was placed on three years’ formal probation in both cases. In February 2012, defendant pleaded no contest to assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)) and admitted strike (§§ 667, 1170.12) and criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) allegations in case No. 10-2728. Sentencing defendant in all three cases, the trial court imposed a stipulated term of eight years eight

1

months in state prison, and awarded the following presentence credit: 1053 days (703 actual and 350 conduct) in case No. 10-2728, 841 days (421 actual and 420 conduct) in case No. 06-0997, and 247 days (165 actual and 82 conduct) in case No. 06-4317. On appeal, defendant contends he is entitled to additional conduct credits for presentence custody occurring on and after the effective date of the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 (Realignment Act). We affirm the judgment.

DISCUSSION The facts underlying defendant’s crimes need not be set forth because they are not relevant to our resolution of this appeal. Defendant contends he is entitled to additional conduct credits for presentence custody served on or after the October 1, 2011, effective date of the Realignment Act. We disagree. Defendant’s claim addresses the award of credits in case No. 10-2728, in which defendant was awarded 1053 days’ presentence credit (703 actual and 350 conduct) for time served from May 30, 2010, until defendant was sentenced on May 1, 2012. Defendant committed the crime in case No. 10-2728 on May 30, 2010. Under the law in effect at the time, a defendant with a current or prior strike conviction was entitled to earn two days’ presentence conduct credit for every four days of presentence custody. (Former § 4019, as amended by Stats. 2009, 3d Ex. Sess., ch. 28, § 50.) The Realignment Act amended the law, entitling defendants to two days of conduct credits for every two days of presentence custody. (§ 4019, subds. (b), (c), (f).) The award of credits is not reduced by a defendant’s current or prior conviction for a serious felony. The provision contains a savings clause, which states: “The changes to this section enacted by the act that added this subdivision shall apply prospectively and shall apply to prisoners who are confined to a county jail, city jail, industrial farm, or road camp for a crime committed on or after October 1, 2011. Any days earned by a