P. v. Keating
Norman Kenneth Keating appeals his multiple convictions of grand theft, forgery, second degree commercial burglary and theft and his sentence. As to his convictions, appellant claimed that his convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence. Specifically he asserted that the prosecution failed to present evidence that he had the specific intent to commit any of the charged crimes and that there was little evidence linking him to the commission of the crimes. In a prior opinion, we affirmed appellant’s convictions concluding that appellant failed to demonstrate that his convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence and that circumstantial evidence presented during the trial supported appellant’s convictions on all charges. Our conclusion as to the sufficiency of the evidence is unchanged here.
As to appellant’s sentence, we previously concluded that appellant was entitled to the benefit of 2009 amendments to Penal Code section 4019 which increased the good conduct credits available to a defendant for presentence custody in a local detention facility. The amended statute became effective after appellant was sentenced and while the prior appeal was pending. Appellant argued the amendments to Penal Code section 4019 must be applied retroactively to all sentences not yet final on appeal. In our prior opinion we concluded that the amendments were retroactive and that appellant was accordingly entitled to recalculation of his presentence custody credits. Therefore, we modified appellant’s sentence accordingly and directed the abstract of judgment to be amended to correctly reflect the credits to which appellant is entitled.
The California Supreme Court granted review in this case. On May 15, 2013, the Supreme Court transferred this matter back to this Court with directions to vacate our prior decision and reconsider the cause in light of People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314. Upon remand the parties were granted the opportunity to file supplemental briefs as to the impact of Brown on this case, but did not do so. Because the Supreme Court in Brown concluded that the 2009 amendments to Penal Code section 4019 did not apply retroactively to a defendant who committed his offenses prior to the provision’s effective date, we now affirm both the judgment and the original sentence.
Comments on P. v. Keating