P. v.
Quinn





















Filed 2/7/13
P. v. Quinn CA3











NOT TO
BE PUBLISHED







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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----






>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVEN QUINN, Defendant and Appellant.

C069356 (Super. Ct. No. 11F01000)

On appeal, defendant Steven Quinn
contends the trial court’s failure to award additional conduct credits pursuant
to the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 (Realignment Act) (Stats. 2011,
ch. 15, § 482) constitutes a violation of equal protection. Following the California Supreme Court’s
decision in People v. Lara (2012) 54
Cal.4th 896 at page 906, footnote 9 (Lara),
we reject defendant’s contention. We
affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUNDhref="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]

Defendant committed his offenses on January 24,
2011. He pled no contest to href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">first degree burglary (Pen. Code,
§ 459, subd. (a)).href="#_ftn2"
name="_ftnref2" title="">[2] His conviction for first degree burglary is a
serious felony. (§ 1192.7, subd.
(c)(18).) The trial court sentenced
defendant to a stipulated term of two years in href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">state prison and awarded 284 days of
presentence credit (190 actual and 94 conduct).


The trial court sentenced defendant
under the September 28, 2010, revision of the presentence credit law. Under that version, a defendant with a
current or prior serious or violent felony conviction was entitled to two days
of conduct credit for every four days of presentence custody. (Former §§ 2933, 4019.)

>Prospective Application
of Section 4019

The Realignment Act amended section
4019, entitling defendants to two days of conduct credits for every two days of
presentence custody. (§ 4019, subds.
(b), (c), (f).) The award of credits is
not reduced by a defendant’s current or prior conviction for a serious
felony. This provision applies
prospectively to defendants serving presentence incarceration for crimes
committed on or after October 1, 2011.
(§ 4019, subd. (h).)

Defendant argues that the prospective
application of section 4019 violates the equal protection clauses of the href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">state and federal constitutions. This argument was rejected by the California
Supreme Court in Lara. (Lara, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 906, fn. 9.)

In Lara, the Supreme Court explained its rejection of defendant’s
equal protection argument as follows:
“As we there [People v. Brown
(2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 328-330] explained, ‘“[t]he obvious purpose”’ of a law
increasing credits ‘“is to affect the behavior of inmates by providing them
with incentives to engage in productive work and maintain good conduct while
they are in prison.” [Citation.] “[T]his incentive purpose has no meaning if
an inmate is unaware of it. The very
concept demands prospective application.”’
(Brown, at p. 329,
quoting In re Strick (1983) 148
Cal.App.3d 906, 913.) Accordingly,
prisoners who serve their pretrial detention before such a law’s effective date,
and those who serve their detention thereafter, are not similarly situated with
respect to the law’s purpose. (>Brown, at pp. 328-329.)” (Lara,
supra, at p. 906, fn. 9.)

Accordingly, defendant is not
entitled to the additional accrual of conduct credits under the October 1,
2011, amendment to section 4019.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.







HOCH , J.







We concur:







RAYE , P. J.







MURRAY , J.