People v. Serratos CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 22, 2013C071014California1,062 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

The facts of defendant‟s offenses are not at issue and need not be set forth in this opinion.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends he is entitled to additional presentence conduct credit under recently amended section 4019, which became operative on October 1, 2011. He acknowledges that the express terms of current section 4019, enacted as part of realignment legislation, indicate that it applies only to defendants whose crimes were “committed on or after October 1, 2011,” and his crime occurred prior to that date. (§ 4019, subd. (h); see Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 482; Stats. 2011, ch. 39, § 53; Stats. 2011-2012, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 12, §§ 16, 35.)2 Noting that “a substantial portion” of his presentence custody occurred after October 1, 2011, defendant argues that “limit[ing] his presentence custody credits based solely on the date of the offense violates his right to equal protection under the law.” We disagree.

Section 4019, subdivision (h), 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 a county jail, city jail, industrial farm, or road camp for a crime…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.