Opinion
2d Crim. No. B238084
10-18-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ MAGALLANES, Defendant and Appellant.
California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director and Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney, for Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5.
(Super. Ct. No. 2011024729)
(Ventura County)
Antonio Rodriguez Magallanes appeals from an order denying his post-judgment motion for extra presentence conduct credits following his September 6, 2011 conviction by plea to carrying a loaded firearm. (Pen. Code, § 12031, subd. (a)(2)(F).) Pursuant to a negotiated plea, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence, granted probation with 300 days county jail, and awarded 86 actual days and 43 days conduct credit. (§§ 2900.5; 4019.) Appellant claims that he is entitled to 86 days conduct credit based on a 2011 amendment of section 4019 (AB 109) providing that certain defendants may earn one-for-one conduct credits for crimes committed after October 1, 2011. (Stats 2011, ch. 15, § 482 (AB 109), operative October 1, 2011.) We affirm.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Former Section 4019 Conduct Credit
At the October 4, 2011 sentencing hearing, the trial court awarded 42 conduct credits based on former section 4019 which provided that appellant was entitled to conduct credits at the rate of two days for every four days of actual time served in presentence custody. (Stats. 2010, ch. 426, § 2; see People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 318 & fn. 3.)
Prospective Application of AB 109
Effective October 1, 2011, section 4019 was amended to provide one-for-one presentence conduct credits for crimes committed on or after October 1, 2011. (Stats 2011, ch. 15, § 482 (AB 109).) Section 4019, subdivision (h) states in pertinent part: " "The changes to this section enacted by the act that added this subdivision shall apply prospectively and shall apply to prisoners who are confined to county jail . . . for a crime committed on or after October 1, 2011. Any days earned by a prisoner prior to October 1, 2011, shall be calculated at the rate required by the prior law." ((Fn. omitted.)
Appellant argues, under equal protection principles, that he is entitled to an additional 44 days conduct credit (enhanced one-for-one conduct credits) even though he committed the offense on July 10, 2011, more than two months before the operative date of AB 109. A similar argument was rejected by our Supreme Court with respect to a superseded version of section 4019 providing for one-for-one presentence conduct credits from January 25, 2010 to September 20, 2011. (Stats 2009-2010, 3d Ex.Sess., ch. 28, § 50; People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 328-330; People v. Lara (2012) 54 Cal.4th 896, 906, fn. 9.) The court held that the equal protection clauses of the federal and state Constitutions (U.S. Const., 14th Amend; Cal. Const., art. 1, § 7, subd. (a)) did not require that the superseded version of section 4019 for enhanced conduct credits be applied retroactively.
The same principle applies to AB 109 which is prospective in application. (See People v. Ellis (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1553.) Appellant committed the crime on July 10, 2011, well before AB 109's operative date (October 1, 2011). " '[T]he 14th Amendment does not forbid statutes and statutory changes to have a beginning, and thus to discriminate between the rights of an earlier and later time.' [Citation.]" (People v. Floyd (2003) 31 Cal.4th 179, 191.) Under the doctrine of stare decisis, People v. Brown, supra, and People v. Lara, supra, control and are dispositive. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, J. We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
PERREN, J.
Nancy Ayers, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director and Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney, for Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.