Skip to content
Name: People v. Keith
Case #: B255005
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 04/06/2015

Defendant's sentence for possession of crack cocaine for sale is reduced based on the Legislature's January 1, 2015 reduction in penalty for that offense. A jury convicted Keith of possessing cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). He received the upper term of five years for the possession for sale count. He appealed. Held: Sentence reversed. Prior to January 1, 2015, the punishment triad for violating section 11351.5 was three, four, or five years in custody. Effective January 1, 2015, that section was amended to reduce the punishment to two, three, or four years, the Legislature having…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lewis
Case #: E055569
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 05/15/2013
Subsequent History: Review Granted 8/14/2013: S211494

The provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act (Reform Act) are applicable to judgments not final as of its effective date. Appellant was sentenced to consecutive life sentences under the "Strikes" law for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and receiving stolen property, counts 1 and 4. In Lewis I, the appellate court remanded the matter for resentencing after finding that the court had not understood its discretion to impose either concurrent or consecutive terms. At the resentencing hearing, the court again imposed consecutive sentences and appellant filed a notice of appeal. While the appeal was…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Cruz
Case #: F062189
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/03/2012

Equal protection does not entitle defendants sentenced before October 1, 2011, but whose convictions were not yet final on appeal by that date, to resentencing under the prospective-only Realignment Legislation, Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(6). A jury convicted Cruz of transporting methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine for sale. Allegations of prior narcotic convictions were stricken in return for Cruz' agreement for immediate sentencing. In March, 2011, he was sentenced to state prison for a term of four years. The offenses for which he received a prison sentence would, after Realignment, require a county jail sentence. He argued that under…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Kemp
Case #: C064821
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/27/2011

Equal protection requires that the amendments to Penal Code section 4019 be applied retroactively irrespective of the date a prisoner's judgment becomes final. At issue was whether the 2010 amendments to Penal Code section 4019 should be applied to inmates whose judgments were final before their effective date. The Court of Appeal held that the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions compel retroactive application to this class of people. The two groups of prisoners at issue are similarly situated since the only thing distinguishing them is the date of finality of their judgments. …

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Bacon
Case #: B214314
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 07/01/2010
Subsequent History: rev. granted 10/13/10 (S184782)

The amendment to Penal Code section 4019 applies retroactively. The court agreed with the majority of published decisions on point, but did not provide its own…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Eusebio
Case #: B216149
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 06/18/2010
Subsequent History: rev. granted 9/22/10, (S184957)

Amended Penal Code section 4019 is not retroactive. The appellate court upheld the denial of a request for additional credits under revised section 4019. The court agreed with the analysis in People v. Hopkins (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 615, which found it determinative that another part of SB 18 which amended credits under section 2933.3 had an express retroactivity clause.
Prospective application of amended section 4019 does not violate equal protection. The court also agreed with the Hopkins analysis on the equal protection argument. The court found In re Kapperman (1974) 11 Cal.3d 542, distinguishable because that…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hopkins
Case #: H033413
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/11/2010
Subsequent History: review granted 7/28/10 (S183724)

The trial court should have awarded additional credits under Penal Code section 2900.5.Appellant argued that his continued incarceration after his earliest possible release date was attributable only to the charges in the instant case, so he was entitled to credits for that time served to be applied to the sentence in this case. Appellant's prison chronology history showed his continued custody was solely attributable to the case. Citing People v. Bruner (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1178, the court awarded him credits for that time.
Amended Penal Code section 4019 is not retroactive. The appellate court upheld the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Delgado
Case #: B213271
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 04/29/2010

A unanimity jury instruction is not required where the evidence shows the charged offense consists of multiple acts in a continuous course of conduct. Appellant was convicted by a jury of dependant elder abuse, criminal threats, and attempted criminal threats. On appeal she argued that the court erred in failing to give the jury a unanimity instruction on the dependant elder abuse offense. Appellant is the mother of an adult, quadriplegic son who lived in the sub acute unit of a hospital. According to evidence received by the jury, during the period of time specified in the abuse charge, appellant…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Otubuah
Case #: E047271
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 04/07/2010

The amendment to section 4019 is not retroactive. In deciding whether to apply the amendment to section 4019 prospectively or retroactively, the court noted that the California Supreme Court has consistently described the statute as a means of encouraging and rewarding behavior. As a result, it concluded "that increases in custody credits should not be considered a mitigation of punishment." And so in retrospect, the court's prior opinion in People v. Doganiere (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 237, applying Estrada principles to conduct credits, was flawed. The court further noted that despite numerous cases applying Estrada, the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Pelayo
Case #: A123042
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 05/06/2010

The amendment to Penal Code section 4019 applies retroactively. The appellate court granted a petition for rehearing to consider whether the appellant should receive the benefit of the amendment to section 4019. The court found it unnecessary to "attempt any Delphic insights into the legislative purpose to conclude" it should apply the principles of In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740. The court noted the presumption of prospective application found in Penal Code section 3 is not a "straightjacket" to "be followed blindly." The court found it important that Estrada was reaffirmed in People v. Nasalga

View Full Summary