The People v. Peterson CA3
Opinion
Opinion
DISCUSSION
Defendant argues that the prospective application of section 4019, the conduct credit provisions of the Realignment Act, violates equal protection principles. This argument was rejected by the California Supreme Court in Lara, supra. In Lara, the Supreme Court explained its rejection of the defendant's equal protection argument as follows: “As we there [People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 328–330 (Brown) ] explained, ‘ “[t]he obvious purpose” ’ of a law increasing conduct credits ‘ “is to affect the behavior of inmates by providing them with incentives to engage in productive work and maintain good conduct while they are in prison.” [Citation.] “[T]his incentive purpose has no meaning if an inmate is unaware of it. The very concept demands prospective application.” ’ (Brown, at p. 329, quoting In re Strick (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 906, 913.) Accordingly, prisoners who serve their pretrial detention before such a law's effective date, and those who serve their detention thereafter, are not similarly situated with respect to the law's purpose. (Brown, at pp. 328–329.)” (Lara, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 906, fn. 9.)