P. v. Harlan CA5

California Court of Appeal Jul 3, 2013 No. F064877Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant was not entitled to additional presentence conduct credits under the 2010 amendments to Penal Code section 4019, as the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Brown is dispositive of the issue.

Issues

Whether the defendant is entitled to additional presentence conduct credits under the 2010 amendments to Penal Code section 4019.
Whether the denial of additional conduct credits violates equal protection.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Defendant’s claim that he is entitled to additional custody credits pursuant to legislative amendments to section 4019 in January 2010 was rejected on both statutory construction and equal protection grounds by the California Supreme Court in Brown”

“The Brown decision is dispositive of defendant’s contentions and we are bound by our high court’s opinion.”

Filed 7/3/13 P. v. Harlan 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F064877 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 1414349, 1231025, v. 1246735 & 1425708)

CAROL WAYNE HARLAN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ricardo Cordova, Judge. Mark J. Shusted, 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, and Louis M. Vasquez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Poochigian, J.

Defendant challenges the total amount of conduct credits he was awarded for time spent in county jail prior to commencement of his prison sentence. We find no error and affirm the trial court’s judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On January 17, 2008, defendant pled guilty in case No. 1231025 to possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and admitted three prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).1 On July 1, 2008, defendant pled guilty in case No. 1246735 to possession of a dangerous weapon (§ 12020, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of a controlled substance.2 Defendant also admitted a prison term enhancement. On July 1, 2008, defendant was sentenced to a term of two years in case No. 1246735 for possession of a dangerous weapon. In case Nos. 1246735 and 1231025, defendant was sentenced to two concurrent terms of two years on the remaining drug counts. The court imposed a term of one year for a prior prison term enhancement. In case No. 1246735, defendant was awarded 9 days of actual custody credits and 4 days of conduct credits. In case No. 1231025, defendant was awarded 159 days of actual custody credits and 78 days of conduct credits. On March 4, 2010, defendant pled no contest in case No. 1414349 to possession of a controlled substance and admitted multiple prior prison term enhancements. On December 3, 2010, defendant pled no contest in case No. 1425708 to possession of a controlled substance and admitted multiple prior prison term enhancements. Defendant

P. v. Harlan CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief