People v. Stiles CA3

Filed 12/4/13 P. v. Stiles CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C072976

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11F3774)

DARREN KEITH STILES,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Darren Keith Stiles pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm and admitted allegations that he had a prior strike conviction and served a prior prison term. The trial court sentenced defendant to five years in prison (the middle term of two years, doubled for the prior strike, plus one year for the prior prison term), and awarded presentence credit as follows: 513 days of actual credit and 256 days of conduct credit, calculated at the rate in existence when defendant committed the offense. The rate for calculating conduct credit in existence on July 5, 2011, was to divide the number of days

1

actually served by four, truncate any remainder, and then multiply the quotient by two. (People v. Culp (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1278, 1283.) Defendant now contends equal protection principles entitle him to presentence conduct credit calculated at the enhanced rate provided by the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 (the Realignment Act) for his days in custody from October 1, 2011, to January 10, 2013, the date of sentencing. For the reasons set forth in People v. Rajanayagam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 42 (Rajanayagam) (review den. Feb. 13, 2013), the contention lacks merit. We will affirm the judgment. DISCUSSION Defendant contends equal protection principles entitle him to presentence conduct credit calculated at the enhanced rate provided by the Realignment Act. Operative October 1, 2011, the Realignment Act amended Penal Code section 4019 to increase the rate at which prisoners could earn conduct credits to two days for every two days actually served (amended Pen. Code, § 4019, subd. (f)). The Realignment Act also added subdivision (h) to section 4019, providing: “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 [specified facilities] for a crime committed on or after October 1, 2011. Any days earned by a prisoner prior to October 1, 2011, shall be calculated at the rate required by the prior law.” “The first prerequisite to a meritorious claim under the equal protection clause is a showing the state has adopted a classification that affects two or more similarly situated groups in an unequal manner. . . . If the first prerequisite is satisfied, we proceed to judicial scrutiny of the classification[s at issue]. Where, as here, the statutory distinction at issue neither touches upon fundamental interests nor is based on gender, there is no equal protection violation if the challenged classification bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. [Citations.] Under the rational relationship test, a statutory