P. v. Hollowell CA3

Filed 6/5/13 P. v. Hollowell CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C072075

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11F06405)

TROY JASON HOLLOWELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Troy Jason Hollowell appeals from a judgment after he pled no contest to possession of a completed check with the intent to defraud (Pen. Code, § 475, subd. (c))1 and identity theft with a prior identity theft conviction (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(2)), and admitted one strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and five prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) allegations. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court’s failure to award additional conduct credits pursuant to the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 (Realignment Act)

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

(Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 482) deprived him of equal protection under the law. We disagree and affirm the judgment. FACTS Defendant committed the crimes for which he was convicted on September 15, 2011. On July 2, 2012, the trial court sentenced defendant to serve nine years in state prison and awarded 435 days of presentence credit, consisting of 291 actual days and 144 days of conduct credit. The trial court calculated defendant’s conduct credits under the September 28, 2010, revision of the presentence custody credit law. Under that version, a defendant with a current or prior serious or violent felony conviction was entitled to two days of conduct credit for every four days of presentence custody. (Former §§ 2933, 4019 (Stats. 2010, ch. 426, § 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 July 2, 2012. He argues that for defendants who committed offenses prior to October 1, 2011, principles of equal protection compel the