P. v. Hawkins CA5

California Court of Appeal Jun 5, 2013 No. F064216Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the October 1, 2011, amendment to Penal Code section 4019, which increased the rate of conduct credits, applies only to offenses committed on or after that date and does not violate equal protection principles.

Issues

Whether the October 1, 2011, amendment to Penal Code section 4019 applies to defendants who committed offenses before that date.
Whether the prospective application of the amended conduct credit statute violates the equal protection rights of defendants who committed offenses before the effective date.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Defendant’s offenses were committed before October 1, 2011. By the terms of section 4019, he was not entitled to the benefit of the October 1, 2011, version of that section.”

“Because the classifications used by the Legislature bear a rational relationship to the purposes of the statutory amendment, we find no violation of the constitutional right to equal protection.”

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

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F064216

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 1420849, 1422553)

v. OPINION MARCUS ANDRE HAWKINS,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Scott T. Steffen, Judge. Elisa A. Brandes, 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, Julie A. Hokans and Galen N. Farris, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Wiseman, J. and Levy, J.

Defendant challenges the rate at which he was awarded conduct credits for time spent in county jail prior to commencement of his prison sentence. We find no error and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant was charged by information with two counts of burglary; the offenses allegedly occurred on September 16, 2009, and June 25, 2010.1 He was arrested in July 2010, and remained in custody while the criminal proceedings were pending. He was convicted of both counts after a jury trial, and was sentenced to state prison in December 2011. Pursuant to Penal Code section 4019,2 defendant was given presentence conduct credits3 at the rate of two days for every four days of actual confinement. He appeals, contending the current version of section 4019, properly interpreted, entitles him to two days of presentence conduct credits for every two-day period of confinement and to interpret it otherwise would violate equal protection. DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review “‘The interpretation of a statute and the determination of its constitutionality are questions of law. In such cases, appellate courts apply a de novo standard of review.’ [Citations.]” (Valov v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1120.)

1 Because the facts of the offenses and the exact nature of the charges are not pertinent to the issues raised in defendant’s appeal, we will not discuss them in any detail. 2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 3 Conduct credit includes credit for both performing labor and good behavior. (§ 4019, subds. (b), (c); People v. Dieck (2009) 46 Cal.4th 934, 939, fn. 3.)

P. v. Hawkins CA5

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, F064216

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief