P. v. Klure CA4/3

Filed 3/4/13 P. v. Klure CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G046022

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11NF2296)

CHARLES VERNON KLURE, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed. John Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton and Meredith S. White, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

This is an appeal from a judgment based on a guilty plea. Appellant argues the trial court shortchanged him on conduct credits and imposed an improper booking fee, but we disagree and affirm the judgment. FACTS In July 2011, appellant was charged with possessing marijuana for sale and possessing Oxycontin. He initially pleaded not guilty, but on October 6, he changed his plea to guilty, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. Per that agreement, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation. The court also ordered appellant to pay a $133.75 booking fee and to serve 180 days in jail. It awarded appellant 109 days of presentence credit, based on 73 days of actual custody, plus 36 days of conduct credit. I Appellant’s first claim requires little discussion. He admits that since he committed his crimes prior to October 1, 2011, he does not come within the ambit of a statutory amendment that became effective on that day that allows inmates to receive presentence conduct credit at the rate of one day for every day spent in custody. (Pen. Code, § 4019, subd. (h) [amendment applies prospectively to inmates whose crimes occurred on or after October 1, 2011].) However, he claims that to deny him the benefit of that amendment based solely on the date he committed his crimes would violate equal protection. Similar claims have been turned down in a number of cases. (See People v. Lara (2012) 54 Cal.4th 896, 906, fn. 9; People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 328; People v. Rajanayagam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 42, 55-56; People v. Verba (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 991, 994-997; People v. Kennedy (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 385, 397-400; People v. Ellis (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1551-1553.) For the reasons explained in those decisions, we reject appellant’s equal protection claim and uphold the decision to award him conduct credit at the preamendment rate of one day for every two days he was in custody. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s decision in that regard.