Hopkins

People v. Hopkins

Good Law
109 Cal. Rptr. 3d 214·184 Cal. App. 4th 615·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 657
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 11, 2010H033413, H034048California4,653 words

Opinion

Opinion

In appeal No. H033413, defendant Jason Hopkins argues that the trial court erred in failing to award him additional presentence custody credits, following his plea of no contest to a charge of possession of paraphernalia intended to be used for injecting a controlled substance while incarcerated. (Pen. Code, § 4573.6.) [1]

In appeal No. H034048, Hopkins appeals the trial court order denying his motion for additional presentence custody credits, the same credits which are at issue in appeal No. H033413. By order dated April 24, 2009, we directed that the two appeals be consolidated for purposes of briefing, argument and decision.

In both appeals, Hopkins contends that he is entitled to additional presentence credits because he was held in prison past his parole date solely on the basis of the new charges brought against him. He also contends that the denial of credits violates his constitutional equal protection rights.

By supplemental opening brief, Hopkins further argues that he is entitled to additional presentence conduct credit due to the amendment of section 4019, which went into effect after he was sentenced. Pursuant to this amendment, defendants are now…

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.