P. v. Luera CA5

Filed 5/6/13 P. v. Luera CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, F064422

v. (Super. Ct. No. 09CM0520)

LOUIE PAUL LUERA, JR., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Thomas DeSantos, Judge. Heather MacKay, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Tiffany J. Gates, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

 Before Kane, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J., and Detjen, J.

In May 2009, appellant, Louie Paul Luera, Jr., pled guilty to unlawful possession of a dagger (Pen. Code,1 § 12020, subd. (a)(4)), being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)), possession of narcotics paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364), and giving a false identity to a peace officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)), and admitted allegations that he had suffered a “strike”2 and that he had served three separate prison terms for prior felony convictions (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In June 2009, the court imposed a prison term of seven years and awarded appellant presentence credits of 164 days, consisting of 110 days of actual time credits and 54 days of custody credits. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and in April 2010, this court, in case No. F058170, affirmed the judgment.3 In January 2012, appellant filed a “MOTION TO CORRECT ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT” (credits motion) in which he argued that he was entitled to additional presentence credits. The court denied the motion. The instant appeal followed. On appeal, appellant‟s sole contention is that the court erred in denying his credits motion. Specifically, he argues that the court‟s failure to award him presentence conduct credits under the one-for-one credit scheme of the current iteration of section 4019 violated his constitutional right to equal protection of the laws. We affirm. DISCUSSION Under section 2900.5, a person sentenced to state prison for criminal conduct is entitled to presentence custody credits for all days spent in custody before sentencing.