P. v. Deanda CA3

Filed 5/31/13 P. v. Deanda CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C070057

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11F04586)

JOSE ALBERTO DEANDA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jose Alberto Deanda appeals from a judgment after he pled no contest to first degree burglary. He argues the trial court erred in failing to award him enhanced presentence credits under the current version of Penal Code section 4019,1 amended pursuant to the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 (Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 482) (Realignment Act), and thus he is entitled to additional conduct credits. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

FACTS Defendant committed first degree burglary on June 26, 2011. On December 9, 2011, he pled no contest to that charge and was immediately sentenced to serve a term in state prison for two years. He was awarded 217 days of presentence custody credits, consisting of 145 days actually served plus 72 days for good conduct. The trial court calculated the conduct credits at the rate in existence at the time he committed the offense.2 DISCUSSION Operative October 1, 2011, the Realignment Act amended section 4019 to enhance the rate at which defendants could earn conduct credits from two days for every four days actually served (former § 4019) to two days for every two days actually served (amended § 4019, subd. (f)). The Realignment Act also added subdivision (h) to section 4019, which provides: “The changes to this section enacted by the act that added this subdivision shall apply prospectively and shall apply to prisoners who are confined to [specified facilities] for a crime committed on or after October 1, 2011. Any days earned by a prisoner prior to October 1, 2011, shall be calculated at the rate required by the prior law.” On appeal, defendant contends he is entitled to have his presentence conduct credits calculated at the enhanced rate provided by the Realignment Act for his days in custody from October 1, 2011, to December 9, 2011. He argues that pursuant to the rule of lenity, the language of subdivision (h) of section 4019 should be interpreted to award presentence conduct credits for custody on or after October 1, 2011. He also argues that