P.

P. v. Baulknight CA4/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 17, 2013D061905California1,856 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haller, J.

DISCUSSION

Baulknight contends the court erred in calculating his custody credits based on the

prior version of section 4019, rather than on the newer version of the statute that became

operative on October 1, 2011, while he was awaiting sentencing.

Under section 4019, defendants are entitled to earn credit towards their sentences

by performing additional labor (§ 4019, subd. (b)) and for good behavior (§ 4019, subd.

(c)). These credits are referred to as conduct credits. (People v. Duff (2010) 50 Cal.4th

787, 793.)

2 The Legislature has repeatedly amended section 4019 regarding the proper

calculation of conduct credits. When Baulknight committed his offense in June 2011,

individuals who had been convicted of a serious or violent felony were entitled to two

days of conduct credits for every four days actually served. (See Former § 4019, subd.

(f); Stats. 2010, ch. 426, § 2; former § 2933, subd. (e)(1); see People v. Rajanayagam

(2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 42, 48-49 (Rajanayagam).) However, when Baulknight was in

local custody awaiting sentencing, the Legislature amended section 4019 as part of the

Realignment Act and amended former section 2933. The amendments, which…

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.