P. v. Meeks CA2/1

Filed 3/21/13 P. v. Meeks CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B231385

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA373050) v.

SHARON MEEKS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Craig E. Veals and Alex Ricciardulli, Judges. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Ann Bergen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Chung L. Mar and Erika D. Jackson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________________

Sharon Meeks appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted her of simple possession of a controlled substance (cocaine base). (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350.) After Meeks waived her right to jury trial on prior conviction allegations, the trial court found true that Meeks had suffered eight prior prison term convictions within the meaning of Penal Code1 section 667.5, subdivision (b), and had suffered one prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes Law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(1) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). The court sentenced Meeks to eight years and eight months in prison: the low term of 16 months for the offense, doubled under the Three Strikes Law, plus six years for six prior prison term convictions.2 The court awarded Meeks custody credit of 247 days and conduct credit of 122 days. Meeks contends she is entitled to additional presentence conduct credits under the October 2011 amendment to section 4019, arguing the amendment should be applied retroactively to her sentence under principles of equal protection of the law. Applying Supreme Court precedent, People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 330, we reject Meeks’s contention. Meeks also asks this court to review the record of the in camera hearing on her Pitchess motion. (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.) We conditionally reverse the judgment and remand the matter because the record demonstrates Meeks was entitled to disclosure of additional discoverable information.3 DISCUSSION Conduct Credits Meeks’s commitment offense occurred on June 29, 2010. She was sentenced on March 2, 2011. At the time of her offense, Meeks was entitled under former section 4019 to two days of conduct credit for every four days actually served. The trial court