Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County No. BAF003806, Peter L. Spinetta, Judge. (Retired judge of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Edward J. Haggerty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Pamela Ratner Sobeck and Meredith A. Strong, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.
As set out in our initial opinion in this case (People v. Salazar (Feb. 9, 2010, G042244) [nonpub. opn.]), defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant, one count each of false imprisonment, assault with a deadly weapon, and making a criminal threat, and six counts of possessing an explosive with intent to injure and was convicted of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer and six counts of possessing an explosive device. (Id. at p. 2.) As part of his 14-year sentence, defendant received the upper term of six years on one count of possessing an explosive device, a consecutive one year and four months for a second count, and concurrent four-year terms for the remaining four of those counts. (Ibid.) We vacated the sentencing on those counts on the ground it violated Penal Code section 654 (all further statutory references are to this code) and remanded for the court to stay sentence on five of the six counts of willful possession of an explosive device. (Ibid.)
One month before our opinion was filed amended section 4019 became effective. (Stats. 2009, 3d Ex. Sess. 2009-2010, ch. 28, § 50, eff. Jan. 25, 2010.) It increased the conduct credits to four days for every two days in local custody for qualified defendants. (§ 4019, subds. (a)(1), (4), (f).) At the resentencing hearing the court ruled it would not apply section 4019 retroactively and on appeal defendant argues this was error. But that issue is irrelevant.
Certain defendants do not qualify for the additional credits, among them those who have been convicted of serious felonies (§ 4019, subds. (b)(2), (c)(1), (2)), which include assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(31)) and making a criminal threat (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(38)). Defendant was convicted of two counts of the former and pleaded guilty to one count of the latter. Thus, he is not entitled to any additional credits, whether or not the statute applies retroactively.
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BEDSWORTH, J., FYBEL, J.