Opinion
E051678
10-04-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARTIN BRADLEY COLEMAN, Defendant and Appellant.
Neil Auwarter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton and Meredith S. White, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super.Ct.No. FBV4151)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. David Cohn, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Neil Auwarter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton and Meredith S. White, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Martin Bradley Coleman contends the trial court erred by awarding Penal Code section 4019 conduct credits at different rates for periods before and after an amendment to that section became effective. We modify the judgment to award additional credits and affirm.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
BACKGROUND
On July 25, 2006, defendant pled guilty to evading a peace officer. (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a).) On September 26, 2006, he was placed on probation.
An amendment to section 4019 became effective January 25, 2010. (See Stats. 2009, 3d Ex. Sess. 2009-2010, ch. 28, § 50.)
On August 11, 2010, defendant admitted violating his probation and was sentenced to state prison for the midterm of two years.
The parties stipulated that defendant had served 298 days in local custody. "As the court calculates, pre-January 25th credits would be 122 days. Post January 25th credits will be 54 days for a total of 474 days." Defendant's trial counsel stipulated only to the arithmetic but maintained "it should be fully retroactive."
DISCUSSION
Section 4019 permits defendants to earn credit toward their sentence for complying with rules and performing assigned labor while in presentence local custody. (§ 4019, subds. (b)-(c).) As opposed to actual credits for time spent in custody while pending sentencing, these credits are collectively referred to as conduct credit. (People v. Duff (2010) 50 Cal.4th 787, 793.) Prior to January 25, 2010, section 4019 provided for "two days [of conduct credit] for every four days the defendant is in actual presentence custody." (Duff, at p. 793.) The January 25, 2010 amendment provided for the accrual of two days of conduct credit for every two days of presentence custody. (Former § 4019, subd. (f).)
The amendment's increase does not apply "[i]f the prisoner is required to register as a sex offender . . . was committed for a serious felony . . . or has a prior conviction for a serious felony, as defined in Section 1192.7, or a violent felony, as defined in Section 667.5." (Former § 4019, subds. (b)(2) & (c)(2).)
--------
Defendant contends that because the January 25, 2010 amendment was operative prior to the date of his sentencing, all of his credits should have been calculated under the amended version of section 4019. The People contend credits are calculated at sentencing but are earned over the course of the time in custody, that a bifurcated calculation "is consistent with the legislative intent behind section 4019 and comports with the requirements of section 2900.5," and that a contrary interpretation would create equal protection violations. Alternatively, defendant contends he is retroactively entitled to the benefits of the January 25, 2010 amendment. The People contend the amendment is prospective only. Because the amendment was in effect at the time of sentencing, the trial court should have awarded custody credits for the entirety of defendant's presentence custody pursuant to the terms of section 4019 as amended. (See People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 845 ["a change in procedural law is not retroactive when applied to proceedings that take place after its enactment"].) Accordingly, we do not address the retroactivity issue.
"Everyone sentenced to prison for criminal conduct is entitled to credit against his term for all actual days of confinement solely attributable to the same conduct. [Citations.] Persons detained in a specified city or county facility, or under equivalent circumstances elsewhere . . . 'prior to the imposition of sentence' may also be eligible for good behavior credits . . . . '[T]he court imposing a sentence' has responsibility to calculate the exact number of days the defendant has been in custody 'prior to sentencing,' add applicable good behavior credits earned pursuant to section 4019, and reflect the total in the abstract of judgment. [Citations.]" (People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 30.) This responsibility is to be performed "[a]t the time of sentencing." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.310.) "[B]efore a sentencing court may withhold conduct credits, the defendant is entitled to prior notice and an opportunity to (1) rebut the findings of his jail violations, and (2) present any mitigating factors. [Citation.]" (People v. Duesler (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 273, 277 (Duesler).)
Section 4019 conduct credits are neither earned per segment, e.g., per four- or two-day period, nor available " ' "all or nothing." ' " (People v. Johnson (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 808, 813-814 (Johnson).) Instead, they "are credited to the defendant's term of imprisonment 'in the discretion of the court imposing the sentence.' [Citation.] It is the duty of the sentencing court to determine 'the total number of days to be credited . . .' for presentence custody. [Citations.] [¶] Although the sheriff is authorized to deduct conduct credits for inmates jailed under a misdemeanor sentence or as a condition of probation, his role with respect to presentence custody credit is to provide the sentencing court with information, records and recommendations. [Citations.] The sheriff or the People have the burden to show that a defendant is not entitled to . . . section 4019 credits. [Citation.]" (Duesler, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 276.) "If the record fails to show that defendant is not entitled to such credits . . . he shall be granted them." (Johnson, at p. 815.) Thus, section 4019 credits are not accumulated and are either withheld or granted at sentencing. It follows then, that the calculation of credits is based upon the law in effect at the time of sentencing.
Section 4019, as amended on January 25, 2010, contains no provision for a two-tiered division of presentence custody credits, and was the only version of section 4019 operative at the time of defendant's sentencing. Thus, the trial court's discretion as to awarding conduct credits was limited solely to reducing credits for failure to comply with rules or perform assigned labor while in presentence local custody (see § 4019, subds. (b)-(c)) and did not extend to reducing credits solely because defendant had been in custody while a no-longer-operative version of section 4019 had provided a lesser amount of credits. Because "the record fails to show that defendant is not entitled [to conduct credits], he shall be granted them" (Johnson, supra, 120 Cal.App.3d at p. 815) as provided for in the version of section 4019 in effect at the time of sentencing
We reject the People's contention that applying the amendment to all presentence custody defeats the purpose of conduct credits or creates equal protection violations. Underlying the People's contentions are the premises that a defendant sentenced on January 26, 2010, could not have had their behavior in custody influenced by the availability of increased conduct credits, and would receive more credits than an eligible defendant sentenced on January 24, 2010. However, regardless of whether a defendant was sentenced before or after the amendment became operative, section 4019 served its purpose of rewarding good behavior; defendants sentenced after the amendment became effective merely had an increased incentive. Furthermore, the distinction between defendants sentenced before and after the amendment became effective is a rational one as it is based upon a temporal distinction. (See, e.g., People v. Floyd (2003) 31 Cal.4th 179, 189 [" 'punishment-lessening statutes given prospective application do not violate equal protection' "]; cf. People v. Sage (1980) 26 Cal.3d 498, 507 [no rational basis, and no compelling state interest, justifying the distinction in awarding conduct credits to detainees sentenced to jail and denying conduct credits to detainees sentenced to prison].)
Accordingly, because defendant had served a total of 298 days in custody prior to sentence and, there was no showing that he was not entitled to conduct credits, he was entitled to 298 days of section 4019 credit. (See In re Marquez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 14, 25-26 [stating preamendment formula for calculating conduct credits].)
OMITTED MANDATORY COURT SECURITY FEE
Although not raised by the parties, we note that the trial court did not impose the court security fee required by section 1465.8. "[A] fee . . . shall be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense . . . ." (§ 1465.8, italics added.) This language is mandatory. Accordingly, the judgment "must be modified to reflect imposition of a court security fee." (People v. Crabtree (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1328.) This is because when a trial court fails to impose a statutorily mandated fee, fine, or assessment, an unauthorized sentence results and this court is empowered to correct it. (See, e.g., People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 853-854 [parole revocation fine]; People v. Turner (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1413-1416 [criminal laboratory analysis fee]; People v. Terrell (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1255-1256 [parole revocation fine].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to impose a section 1465.8 court security fee of $20, and to set presentence credit for time served at 596 days, consisting of 298 actual days, and 298 days of section 4019 conduct credit. The superior court clerk is directed to prepare a new minute order, and an amended abstract of judgment, reflecting the modifications, and forward certified copies of the new minute order and amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
MILLER
J.