People v. Linear

Opinion

FRANSON, P. J. Statement of the Case and Facts

This is the second appeal arising out of a judgment of conviction of forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, burglary and robbery. Appellant was 17 years old at the time these crimes were committed.

Appellant was originally sentenced to state prison for a total term of 12 years following a Youth Authority (YA) determination under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707.2 that he was not amenable to treatment. However, in an unpublished opinion, this court remanded the case for resentencing after the preparation of a new amenability report by the YA.

Upon resentencing, appellant was committed to the YA for 12 years pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 1731.5. The trial court ordered that appellant’s term be reduced by 295 days for the period spent in county jail before the original sentencing plus 147 days’ conduct credits related to that period. Appellant was also credited with 1,022 days for the time spent in the custody of the Department of Corrections.

Discussion

I Appellant is not entitled to conduct credits against his maximum YA confinement time for the time he was in the custody of the Department of Corrections.

A defendant sentenced to the YA pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 1731.5 may not be held in YA confinement for a period exceeding the maximum term for which he would have received prison confinement. (People v. Olivas (1976) 17 Cal.3d 236, 257 [140 Cal.Rptr. 734].) Such a defendant receives credits against his maximum confinement time for actual time spent in presentence custody. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 4945, subd. (e).) However, unlike a state prison inmate, the defendant is not entitled to have his maximum term reduced by either [511]presentence conduct credits accrued while in local custody (People v. Sage (1980) 26 Cal.3d 498, 506) or postsentence conduct credits computed under Penal Code sections 2930 through 2932. (People v. Austin (1981) 30 Cal.3d 155, 161 [178 Cal.Rptr. 312, 636 P.2d 1].) This denial of conduct credits does not offend equal protection because the rehabilitative and indeterminate nature of a YA commitment is fundamentally different from the penal nature of a determinate term in state prison. (People v. Garcia (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 191, 196 [240 Cal.Rptr. 703].) The Legislature has declared that the purpose of the Youth Authority Act “is to protect society from the consequences of criminal activity and to such purpose training and treatment shall be substituted for retributive punishment and shall be directed toward the correction and rehabilitation of young persons who have committed public offenses.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1700.) However, “the purpose of imprisonment for crime is punishment.” (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (a)(1).)