P. v. Peterson

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 9/5/13  P. v. Peterson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

(Yuba)

----

 

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,                           Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   JONATHAN WAYNE PETERSON,                           Defendant and Appellant.

C071608   (Super. Ct. No. CRF11-399)

 

 

            Defendant
Jonathan Wayne Peterson appeals from the sentence imposed following his plea of
no contest to assault likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245,
subd. (a)(1))href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"
title="">[1]
and admitted a prior strike allegation (§ 667, subds. (d) & (e)).  He contends the prospective application of
section 4019, the conduct credit provisions of the Realignment Act, violates href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">equal protection principles.  Following the California Supreme Court's
decision in People v. Lara (2012) 54
Cal.4th 896, 906, footnote 9 (Lara),
we reject this claim.

RELEVANT
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

            Defendant
pleaded no contest to assault likely to cause great bodily injury in case No.
CRF11-399.  The offense occurred on July 26, 2011.  He was sentenced to an aggregate term of five
years in state prison.  This sentence
included resolution of a separate case, case No. CRF11-158.  Under the version of section 4019 then in
effect, defendant was awarded 157 days of actual href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">custody credits and 78 days of conduct
credits in case No. CRF11-399 and 278 days of actual credit and 139 days of conduct
credits in case No. CRF11-158. 

DISCUSSION

            Defendant
argues that the prospective application of section 4019, the conduct credit
provisions of the Realignment Act, violates equal protection principles.  This argument was rejected by the California
Supreme Court in Lara,> supra.

            In >Lara, the Supreme Court explained its
rejection of the defendant's equal protection argument as follows:  “As we there [People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 328–330 (>Brown) ] explained, ‘ “[t]he obvious
purpose” ’ of a law increasing conduct 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, 54 Cal.4th at p. 906, fn. 9.) 



 

DISPOSITION

            The
judgment is affirmed.

 

 

 

                                                                                              NICHOLSON             , J.

 

 

 

We concur:

 

 

 

                 BLEASE                , Acting P. J.

 

 

 

                 BUTZ                     , J.