People v. Higareda CA5

Filed 10/6/20 P. v. Higareda CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F079521 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18CR-05346) v.

JESSICA HIGAREDA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Mark V. Bacciarini, Judge. Stephanie-Louise Jamieson for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Henry J. Valle, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Meehan, J. and DeSantos, J.

Defendant Jessica Higareda was released to a pretrial electronic monitoring program. At sentencing, she was given no conduct credits for her time on pretrial electronic monitoring. On appeal, she contends that the denial of conduct credits for pretrial electronic monitoring violated constitutional equal protection principles. The People agree. We accept the People’s concession, remand the matter to the trial court to award full conduct credits for defendant’s pretrial electronic monitoring, and affirm in all other respects. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On October 5, 2018, the Merced County District Attorney charged defendant with residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 462, subd. (a);1 count 1), and four counts of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd (a); counts 2, 3, 4 & 5). On December 5, 2018, the trial court released defendant on a pretrial electronic monitoring program (§ 1203.018). On March 21, 2019,2 defendant pled no contest to count 1 and the court dismissed counts 2 through 5 on the prosecutor’s motion. On April 16, defendant filed a motion for an award of conduct credits for her time served on pretrial electronic monitoring. She argued that since persons in postsentence electronic monitoring receive conduct credits, equal protection required that persons in pretrial electronic monitoring also receive conduct credits. On May 16, the trial court denied defendant’s motion, deciding that it would award actual custody credits but deny conduct credits for defendant’s time served on pretrial electronic monitoring. On the same date, the trial court sentenced defendant to three years on felony probation, required her to serve one year in jail as a condition of probation, and continued the matter for a hearing on calculation of credits.