People v. Heard

California Court of Appeal Sep 15, 1993 No. A060056Published

Before: Newsom

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the calculation of presentence conduct credits under Penal Code section 4019 does not violate equal protection, as pretrial detainees and state prison inmates are not similarly situated. The court also corrected the defendant's presentence custody and conduct credits due to a clerical error regarding the arrest date.

Issues

Does the 'two-for-four' calculation method for presentence conduct credits under Penal Code section 4019 violate equal protection?
Is the defendant entitled to a recalculation of presentence custody and conduct credits due to an inaccurate arrest date in the probation report?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The slightly less favorable section 4019 two-for-four credit formula does not constitute a denial of equal protection.”

“Pretrial felony detainees and state prison inmates are not similarly situated with respect to the purposes of the custody credit statutes.”

“We find no invidious classification or equal protection violation in the calculation of appellant's conduct credits under section 4019.”

18 Cal.App.4th 1025 (1993) 22 Cal. Rptr.2d 684 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

JOHNNY RAY HEARD, Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. A060056. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One.

September 15, 1993. [1027] COUNSEL

Stanley G. Hilton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass, Assistant Attorney General, Stan M. Helfman and Violet M. Lee, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

NEWSOM, Acting P.J.

Upon revocation of appellant's probation, he was sentenced to the middle term of three years for aggravated assault (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)).[1] He was awarded 217 days of presentence custody credits and 108 days of conduct credits. On appeal, he challenges only the award of credits.

First, he contends that the trial court miscalculated his presentence custody credits, due primarily to an inaccurate listing of the arrest date as October 26, 1992, in the supplemental probation report. Documentary evidence reveals that appellant was actually arrested and placed in custody on October 22, 1992, and sentenced on December 3, 1992. Appellant is entitled to credit for both the date of his arrest and date of sentencing, so he must be awarded 43 days presentence custody credit rather than 38 days, as the Attorney General concedes. (People v. Fugate (1990) 219 Cal. App.3d 1408, 1414 [269 Cal. Rptr. 37]; People v. Bravo (1990) 219 Cal. App.3d 729, 735 [268 Cal. Rptr. 486]; In re Jackson (1986) 182 Cal. App.3d 439, 442-443 [227 Cal. Rptr. 303].) Thus, including prior presentence days in custody of 179 days before appellant was granted probation appellant must be awarded a total of 222 days of actual custody credits. A commensurate correction must [1028]

People v. Heard

AI Brief

OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief