Skip to content
Name: In re Mallard
Case #: D071345
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 01/27/2017
Summary

Fifteen percent limit on conduct credits applies to violent offender’s entire sentence, including term for a felony reclassified as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana and was placed on probation. While on probation, he was convicted of carjacking. He was sentenced to three years in prison for the carjacking and, on the same day, his probation was revoked and the trial court imposed a consecutive eight-month term for the marijuana conviction. Defendant’s marijuana offense was later reclassified as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47 and he was resentenced to a consecutive 240-day misdemeanor term for that conviction. Following the completion of his prison term for carjacking, defendant was transferred to local custody to serve his misdemeanor sentence. He filed a motion, asserting that the 15 percent limit on conduct credits under Penal Code section 2933.1 should not apply to his misdemeanor sentence. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant appealed and filed a habeas petition. Held: Petition denied. Under section 2933.1, a person who is convicted of a violent felony under section 667.5, subdivision (c) and sentenced to a term of state prison is subject to a 15 percent limitation on conduct credits. When a defendant’s sentence for a violent felony is imposed contemporaneously with, and consecutive to, other offenses (including misdemeanors) the custody credit limitation in section 2933.1 applies to the entire sentence. Here, because defendant was sentenced to a consecutive term for his marijuana offense contemporaneously with the term for the carjacking, which is a violent felony, the 15 percent limitation applies to his entire sentence. The reclassification of defendant’s marijuana offense under Proposition 47 had no effect on the applicability of the conduct credit limitation.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D071345.PDF