From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Walker

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Butte
Mar 25, 2010
No. C062549 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2010)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUTH LOUISE WALKER, Defendant and Appellant. C062549 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Butte March 25, 2010

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. CM030654

BUTZ, J.

Defendant Ruth Louise Walker pleaded guilty to felony child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)) and no contest to misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to four years in state prison with six months in the county jail to run concurrently for the misdemeanor count. Upon defendant’s request, the court found her in danger of becoming an addict under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051 and committed her to the California Institution for Women for the California Rehabilitation Center program.

Undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.

I

On appeal, defendant contends, and the People properly concede, that the trial court’s order that she register as a drug offender pursuant to section 11590 must be stricken.

Section 11590, subdivision (a), requires individuals convicted of certain drug offenses, including violation of section 11377, subdivision (a), to register with the head of the local law enforcement agency of the city or county of their residence. (§ 11590, subd. (a); People v. Chapman (1978) 21 Cal.3d 124, 126.) Section 11590, subdivision (c), however, specifically provides that the registration requirement does not apply to those convicted of a misdemeanor under section 11357, 11360, or 11377. (§ 11590, subd. (c); Chapman, supra, at p. 126.)

Accordingly, the trial court’s order requiring defendant to register pursuant to section 11590 must be stricken.

II

Pursuant to this court’s miscellaneous order No. 2010-002, filed March 16, 2010, we deem defendant to have raised the issue (without additional briefing) of whether amendments to Penal Code section 4019, effective January 25, 2010, apply retroactively to her pending appeal and entitle her to additional presentence credits. As expressed in the recent opinion in People v. Brown (Mar. 16, 2010, C056510) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, we conclude that the amendments do apply to all appeals pending as of January 25, 2010. Defendant is not among the prisoners excepted from the additional accrual of credit. (Pen. Code, § 4019, subds. (b)(2), (c)(2); Stats. 2009, 3d Ex. Sess., ch. 28, § 50.) Consequently, defendant, having served three days of actual presentence custody, is entitled to two days of conduct credits, for a total of five days.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to strike the registration requirement under section 11590 and to award defendant two days of conduct credits, for a total of five days of presentence credits. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare amended minutes of the June 18, 2009 sentencing hearing, deleting the section 11590 registration requirement and awarding the two days of conduct credits. A certified copy of the amended minutes shall be forwarded to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

We concur: HULL, Acting P. J. ROBIE, J.


Summaries of

People v. Walker

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Butte
Mar 25, 2010
No. C062549 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2010)
Case details for

People v. Walker

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUTH LOUISE WALKER, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Third District, Butte

Date published: Mar 25, 2010

Citations

No. C062549 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2010)