Cruz

Cruz v. Roe

Good Law
90 F. App'x 520
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 25, 2004No. 03-15287; D.C. No. CV-01-02077-WHACalifornia597 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner David R. Cruz appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Cruz contends that the state court miscomputed the amount of good time credit for time served he was entitled to by applying a section of the California Penal Code that became effective after the date of his crimes in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.

We affirm the district court.

I

Cruz pleaded guilty to 47 counts of committing lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14 in violation of California Penal Code § 288(a). Count One charged acts that were alleged to have occurred between January 1, 1994 and May 31, 1994; the other 46 counts charged acts that were alleged to have occurred after January 1, 1995. The trial court sentenced Cruz to the maximum of 36 years and gave Cruz a total of 340 days of pretrial custody cred *521 its-296 actual days and an additional 15 percent, or 44 days, as “good time work credits” pursuant to California Penal Code § 2933.1.

Cruz claims that application of § 2933.1 to Count One constituted a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution, and the trial court’s failure to inform him of his…

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.