People v. Patterson CA3

Filed 1/22/14 P. v. Patterson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COPY

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----

THE PEOPLE, C071346

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. P11CRF0133)

v.

JOSEPH ANTONE PATTERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Joseph Antone Patterson pleaded guilty to first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; statutory references that follow are to the Penal Code), five counts of receipt of stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (a)) and admitted two prior prison term allegations (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court imposed a stipulated term of 10 years in state prison and awarded 387 days of presentence credit, consisting of 259 actual days and 128 days of conduct credit. The

1

trial court subsequently rejected two pro per motions from defendant seeking additional presentence credits. On appeal, defendant contends he is entitled to additional conduct credits as a matter of equal protection because similarly situated defendants who post bail are entitled to earn conduct credits at a higher rate in state prison and because the trial court did not retroactively apply the conduct credit provisions of the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 (Realignment Act) (Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 482). We affirm the judgment.

DISCUSSION

We will forego a discussion of the facts of defendant’s crimes as they are unnecessary to resolve this appeal. Defendant committed his crimes in February and March 2011. Under the law in effect at the time, defendant, who was convicted of first degree burglary, a serious felony (§1192.7, subd. (c)(18)), was entitled to earn two days of conduct credit for every four days of presentence custody. (Former §§ 2933, 4019 (Stats. 2010, ch. 426).) Defendant contends that “[d]ue to the most recent changes to credits calculations in the Code, effective October 1, 2011, appellant will receive day for day credits for the time he spends in prison. (§ 2933, subd. (b).)” According to defendant, had he been freed on bail, “he could receive 257 days of conduct credits for the 257 days he instead spent in jail because he could not post bail, and therefore ea[r]ned only 128 days of conduct credits.” Defendant claims the conduct credit provisions applying to state prison (§ 2933) and presentence custody (§ 4019) serve the same purpose, “to encourage good behavior of those in custody.” This, he concludes violates equal protection as there is no rational basis for the disparate treatment of defendants who can and cannot make bail. As we understand defendant’s argument, had he been able to make bail, he would not have begun his period of incarceration until the date of sentencing, that is, November 28, 2011. From that time forward he will receive day for day credits,