People v. Bacon

99 Citing cases

  1. People v. Davis

    No. A128430 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2010)

    Cases which occupy the “majority” view to date have taken the position that the section 4019 amendments apply retroactively. (SeePeople v. Bacon (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 333, 336, review granted Oct. 13, 2010, S184782; see alsoPeople v. Keating (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 364, 369, review granted Sept. 22, 2010, S184354; People v. Pelayo (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 481, 485, review granted July 21, 2010, S183552; Norton, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th 408, 411; People v. Delgado (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 271, 282, rehearing granted May 26, 2010; People v. Landon (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1099, review granted June 23, 2010, S182808; People v. House (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1052, review granted June 23, 2010, S182813; People v. Brown (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1363–1364, review granted June 9, 2010, S181963.) Distinctly fewer opinions have decided, as did the trial court in the present case, that the amendments have prospective application only.

  2. People v. Brown

    No. A125823 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2010)

    Cases which occupy the “majority” view to date have taken the position that the section 4019 amendments apply retroactively. (See People v. Bacon (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 333, 336, review granted October 13, 2010, S184782; see alsoPeople v. Keating (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 364, 369, review granted Sept. 22, 2010, S184354; People v. Pelayo (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 481, 485, review granted July 21, 2010, S183552; Norton, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th 408, 411; People v. Delgado (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 271, 282; People v. Landon (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1099, review granted June 23, 2010, S182808; People v. House (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1052, review granted June 23, 2010, S182813; People v. Brown (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1363–1364, review granted June 9, 2010, S181963.) Distinctly fewer opinions have decided that the amendments have prospective application only.

  3. People v. Muldoon

    A127461, A129627 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 31, 2011)

    Cases which occupy the “majority” view to date have taken the position that the section 4019 amendments apply retroactively. (See People v. Bacon (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 333, 336, review granted Oct. 13, 2010, S184782; see also People v. Keating (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 364, 369, review granted Sept. 22, 2010, S184354; People v. Pelayo (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 481, 485, review granted July 21, 2010, S183552; Norton, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th 408, 411; People v. Delgado (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 271, 282, rehearing granted May 26, 2010; People v. Landon (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1099, review granted June 23, 2010, S182808; People v. House (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1052, review granted June 23, 2010, S182813; People v. Brown (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1363–1364, review granted June 9, 2010, S181963.) Distinctly fewer opinions have decided, as did the trial court in the present case, that the amendments have prospective application only.

  4. People v. Mondragon

    No. B226759 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 27, 2011)

    (§ 4019, subd. (g).) See In re Kemp (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 252 [122 Cal.Rptr.3d 354], review granted April 13, 2011, S191112; People v. Bacon (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 333 [111 Cal.Rptr.3d 573], review granted Oct. 13, 2010, S184782; see also, e.g., People v. Keating (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 364 [110 Cal.Rptr.3d 754], review granted Sept. 22, 2010, S184354; People v. Norton (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 408 [109 Cal.Rptr.3d 197], review granted Aug. 11, 2010, S183260; People v. Pelayo (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 481 [108 Cal.Rptr.3d 825], review granted July 21, 2010, S183552; but see, e.g., People v. Hopkins (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 615 [109 Cal.Rptr.3d 214], review granted July 28, 2010, S183724. The Attorney General contends that regardless of the January 2010 amendment’s retroactivity, it does not apply to appellant because he has a prior felony conviction for robbery.

  5. People v. Hines

    No. A128243 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2010)

    Courts have split on the retroactivity issue. Cases holding that the amendments apply retroactively include: People v. Bacon (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 333, 336, review granted Oct. 13, 2010, S184782 (Bacon); People v. Keating (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 364, 369, review granted Sept. 22, 2010, S184354 (Keating); People v. Pelayo (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 481, 485, review granted July 21, 2010, S183552 (Pelayo); Norton, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 411; People v. Landon (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1099, review granted June 23, 2010, S182808 (Landon); People v. House (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1052, review granted June 23, 2010, S182813; People v. Brown (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1363–1364, review granted June 9, 2010, S181963. These cases represent the majority view. (Bacon, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 336; Keating, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p. 383.)

  6. People v. Montonen

    No. A125257 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 5, 2010)

    (b) & (c), as amended by Stats. 2009, 3d Ex. Sess. 2009-2010, ch. 28, § 50; Sen. Bill No. 3X 18 (2009-2010 3d Ex. Sess.) § 50 (Senate Bill No. 18).)” (People v. Bacon (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 333, 335-336, petn. for review pending, petn. filed Aug. 3, 2010, time for grant or denial of review extended to Nov. 1, 2010, S184782.) The legislation addressed the state’s fiscal crisis by, among other things, awarding presentence conduct credits at a greater rate, thereby reducing jail populations.

  7. People v. Patterson

    No. B216454 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2010)

    Meanwhile, as in House, the majority of courts to have published opinions on the issue have found the amendment retroactive. (People v. Bacon (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 333.) Recent opinions holding that the amended statute applies retroactively include People v. Brown (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1354, review granted June 9, 2010, S181963; People v. Landon (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1096, review granted June 23, 2010, S182808; People v. House, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th 1049, review granted June 23, 2010, S182813; People v. Pelayo (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 481, review granted July 21, 2010, S183552; People v. Norton (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 408, review granted August 11, 2010, S183260; People v. Keating (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 364; People v. Weber (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 337, review granted August 18, 2010, S184873; and People v. Bacon, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th 333. Others, concluding the amendment applies only prospectively are, People v. Rodriguez (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1, review granted June 9, 2010, S181808; People v. Hopkins (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 615, review granted July 28, 2010, S183724; People v. Otubuah (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 422, review granted July 21,

  8. People v. Gomez

    No. B215108 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2010)

    2009-2010 (3rd Ex. Sess.) Ch. 28, § 50.) That amendment took effect while this appeal was pending. The Courts of Appeal disagree about the retroactive effect of the recent amendment to Penal Code section 4019. (Compare People v. Norton (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 408, 414-420 [retroactive], People v. Keating (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 364, 382-391 [retroactive] and People v. Bacon (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 333, ___ [111 Cal.Rptr.3d 573, 574-575] [retroactive] with People v. Eusebio (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 990, 992-996 [not retroactive].) The retroactivity question is before the California Supreme Court in: People v. Hopkins (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 615 (review granted July 28, 2010, S183724) [not retroactive]; People v. Pelayo (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 481 (review granted July 21, 2010, S183552) [retroactive]; People v. Otubuah (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 422 (review granted July 21, 2010, S184314) [not retroactive]; People v. Rodriguez (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1 (review granted June 9, 2010, S181808) [not retroactive]; People v. Brown (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1354 (review granted June 9, 2010, S181963) [retroactive]; People v. House (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1049 (review granted June 23, 2010, S182813) [retroactive]; and People v. Landon (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1096 (review granted June 23, 1010, S18280

  9. People v. Ward

    No. A126964 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2010)

    Courts have split on this issue. Cases holding that the amendments apply retroactively include: People v. Bacon (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 333, 336 (Bacon); People v. Keating (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 364, 369 (Keating); People v. Pelayo (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 481, 485 (review granted July 21, 2010, S183552) (Pelayo); Norton, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 411; People v. Delgado (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 271, 282; People v. Landon (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1099 (review granted June 23, 2010, S182808) (Landon); People v. House (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1052 (review granted June 23, 2010, S182813); and People v. Brown, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at pages 1363-1364. These cases represent the majority view. (Bacon, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 336; Keating, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p. 383.)

  10. People v. Fuller

    No. A127226 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2010)   Cited 1 times

    Courts have split on this issue. Cases holding that the amendments apply retroactively include: People v. Bacon (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 333, 336 (Bacon); People v. Keating (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 364, 369 (Keating); People v. Pelayo (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 481, 485 (review granted July 21, 2010, S183552) (Pelayo); Norton, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 411; People v. Delgado (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 271, 282; People v. Landon (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1099 (review granted June 23, 2010, S182808) (Landon); People v. House (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1052 (review granted June 23, 2010, S182813); People v. Brown (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1363–1364 (review granted June 9, 2010, S181963). These cases represent the majority view. (Bacon, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 336; Keating, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p. 383.)