Skip to content
Name: People v. Garcia
Case #: B168985
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 08/02/2004
Subsequent History: 8/17/04 rhg. den.; 11/17/04 rev. den.
Summary

Just as determining whether a prior conviction is a serious or violent felony for purposes of the Three Strikes law is within the province of the trial court, so too determining whether a defendant’s current conviction for first degree burglary is a violent felony for the purpose of calculating presentence conduct credits is properly part of the trial court’s traditional sentencing function. There is no constitutional right to a jury determination of facts relating to presentence conduct credits. Penal Code section 2933.1, subdivision (c)’s limitation on presentence conduct credits is not a sentencing enhancement and does not operate to increase the maximum penalty prescribed for first degree burglary, and therefore does not trigger the right to a jury trial identified in Apprendi and Blakely. Further, there is no statutory right to a jury trial to determine the facts relating to conduct credits. Therefore, where there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that appellant was present inside the residence during the burglary, the 15% limitation on presentence conduct credits was properly imposed.