People v. Serratos CA3

Filed 10/22/13 P. v. Serratos CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C071014

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 09F07796)

v.

FERNANDO SERRATOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

An October 2009 traffic stop of defendant Fernando Serratos yielded, among other things, 55.7 grams of methamphetamine and a loaded stolen pistol. Defendant pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine while armed with a loaded, operable firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)) and carrying a concealed firearm (Pen. Code, former § 12025, subd. (b)(6) [now § 25400]).1 He admitted a prior serious or violent felony conviction. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.)

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

In exchange, five related counts and enhancing allegations were dismissed. Defendant was sentenced to prison for five years four months and was awarded 927 days of custody credit and 462 days of conduct credit. On appeal, defendant contends principles of equal protection entitle him to additional conduct credit for the period from October 1, 2011, until his sentencing on April 27, 2012. We affirm. FACTS The facts of defendant‟s offenses are not at issue and need not be set forth in this opinion. DISCUSSION Defendant contends he is entitled to additional presentence conduct credit under recently amended section 4019, which became operative on October 1, 2011. He acknowledges that the express terms of current section 4019, enacted as part of realignment legislation, indicate that it applies only to defendants whose crimes were “committed on or after October 1, 2011,” and his crime occurred prior to that date. (§ 4019, subd. (h); see Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 482; Stats. 2011, ch. 39, § 53; Stats. 2011-2012, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 12, §§ 16, 35.)2 Noting that “a substantial portion” of his presentence custody occurred after October 1, 2011, defendant argues that “limit[ing] his presentence custody credits based solely on the date of the offense violates his right to equal protection under the law.” We disagree.