Opinion
C037421.
11-25-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTHONY KARL MACK, Defendant and Appellant.
This case, concerning the appropriate measure and procedure for the award of conduct credits for time served in prison prior to the invalidation of a judgment of conviction, is here on remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration of our earlier decision on appeal from the judgment in the light of In re Martinez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 29.
A jury convicted defendant Anthony Karl Mack of second degree robbery committed in 1995 and he was sentenced to prison. A federal district court granted his writ of habeas corpus and directed that the judgment of conviction be vacated for failure to allow defendant to represent himself at his jury trial. Upon return to the trial court defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to the second degree robbery and was awarded credit on his new sentence only for the actual days of prior prison custody. The court referred the matter to the California Department of Corrections (CDC) for its determination of defendants entitlement to conduct credits for the time spent in prison custody.
In our earlier decision we concluded that, because his initial conviction was invalidated defendant was required by Penal Code section 1262 to be placed in the same position as if no trial had been had. For that reason we held that defendants time in prison custody prior to the reversal of the judgment and a new conviction must be treated as preconviction custody and that, by application of principles of equal protection, his conduct credits for the time spent in prison must be measured by the standards of Penal Code section 4019 as if he had spent the prison time in local custody.
In In re Martinez, supra, the Supreme Court held that, for purposes of computation of a defendants conduct credits, the period spent in state prison prior to reversal of his initial conviction shall be treated as postsentence time. For that reason the trial court in this case was correct in so treating the matter and in referring the case to the CDC for determination of the defendants conduct credits earned during defendants inprison confinement following his initial conviction.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: DAVIS, J., HULL, J. --------------- Notes: The trial court awarded defendant 159 days of custody credits and 78 days of conduct credits for the time spent in local custody. It awarded defendant 1,675 days of inprison custody credits but declined to determine the standards by which conduct credits should be awarded. It referred the matter to the CDC for its determination of conduct credits.