P.
v. Basquez
Filed 1/29/13 P. v. Basquez CA2/6
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RAMIRO BASQUEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
2d Crim. No. B239909
(Super. Ct. No. 2011011186)
(Ventura
County)
Ramiro
Basquez appeals the judgment entered after he pled guilty to
sentence and granted appellant three years of formal probation with terms and
conditions that included 180 days of confinement in county jail. Appellant contends that the court erred by
failing to award him conduct credits pursuant to the amended version of section
4019 that went into effect on October 1, 2011.
We affirm.
On
March 8, 2012, upon ordering
appellant to serve 180 days in custody, the court awarded him two conduct
credits for each four days of custody.
The court’s award was based on the calculation formula of the former
version of section 4019 that was in effect on February 5, 2011, the date appellant committed
forgery.
Appellant
contends, as he did below, that the trial court erred by failing to award him
conduct credits under the current version of section 4019, which provides two
days of conduct credit for each two days of custody. As appellant concedes, the current version of
section 4019 expressly states that it only applies to defendants confined for
crimes committed on or after the statute's effective date, October 1, 2011.
He nonetheless seeks enhanced credits under the current statute. Our Supreme Court has rejected comparable
claims. (People v. Lara (2012) 54 Cal.4th 896, 906, fn. 9; see also
329 [prospective application of the January 25, 2010, amendment to section 4019
does not violate equal protection]; People
v. Ellis (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1553 [defendants who commit crimes
prior to the October 1, 2011, amendment to section 4019 are not entitled to
enhanced credits for time served after that date].) We are bound to follow our Supreme Court. (Auto
Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.) We reject appellant’s claim.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED.
PERREN,
J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
YEGAN, J.
>
Nancy
Ayers, Judge
Superior
Court County
of Ventura
______________________________
Richard B. Lennon, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris,
Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E.
Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson, Supervising
Attorney General, and Seth P. McCutcheon, Deputy Attorney General, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
Penal Code.
