Skip to content
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. 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. Norton
Case #: A123659
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 05/05/2010
Subsequent History: rev. granted 8/11/10 (S183260)

The amendment to Penal Code section 4019 applies retroactively to eligible defendants whose convictions were not final on the date of enactment. In deciding whether amended section 4019 should apply retroactively, the court debated whether the general presumption of prospectivity (Pen. Code, § 3) or the rule established in In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, giving a defendant the benefit of an amendatory statute reducing punishment, controlled. The court concluded section 4019, as amended, lessened punishment because it reduces the overall time in prison, so Estrada principles controlled. The court awarded appellant additional…

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
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. House
Case #: B212057
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 04/09/2010
Subsequent History: rev. granted 6/23/10 (S182813)

The amendment to Penal Code section 4019 regarding presentence custody credits must be applied retroactively to eligible defendants whose convictions were not final on the date of enactment. While the appeal was pending, the Legislature amended section 4019, which changed the calculation of presentence conduct credit. The Legislature did not include a savings clause, nor it expressly indicate whether the amendment applies retroactively. But the Court of Appeal found the plain language of the statute indicates the amendment lessens punishment: before the amendment, a defendant received one day of credit for each six-day period of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Landon
Case #: A123779
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 04/13/2010
Subsequent History: rev. granted 6/23/10 (S182808)

Amended Penal Code section 4019, which changed the calculation of presentence conduct credit, applies retroactively. While this appeal was pending, the Legislature amended section 4019. Defendant filed a motion in the trial court requesting that her presentence conduct credits be calculated in accordance with the amended statute. The trial court denied the request, finding that the amended statute did not apply retroactively. Defendant appealed from this ruling. The court noted SB 18 has neither a saving clause nor an express statement of intent. But, under In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, if the amendment reduces punishment,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Brown
Case #: C056510
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/16/2010
Subsequent History: review granted 6/9/10, (S181963)

The amendment to Penal Code section 4019 should be applied retroactively to eligible defendants whose convictions were not final on the effective date of the statute. Appellant's appeal was pending when section 4019, awarding enhanced conduct credits to qualifying defendants, became operative. He argued that per In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, he was entitled to the benefit of the amendment because by increasing credits it reduces punishment. Respondent countered penal statutes are presumed to apply prospectively (Pen. Code, § 3), and claimed the statute it does not lessen punishment, but rather increases the incentive for good behavior. The…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Rodriguez
Case #: F057533
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/01/2010

The amendment to Penal Code section 4019 granting more presentence good conduct credit applies prospectively only. Appellant was sentenced in February, 2009, to three years eight months in prison and was awarded presentence credits of 380 days. In January, 2010, the Legislature amended section 4019 to provide that specified persons may accrue conduct credit at the rate of four days for every four days of presentence custody. The statute did not specify that it had prospective application only. Appellant contended on appeal that the 2010 amendment to section 4019 was retroactive, and therefore the more generous conduct credit accrual provisions…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Gomez
Case #: G042807
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 12/02/2009

The credit limitation under Penal Code section 2933.1 is not triggered where the only violent felony conviction has been stayed pursuant to section 654. Gomez pled guilty to four counts, including gross vehicular manslaughter, arising from a drunk-driving accident in which his friend who was a passenger was killed. Gomez also admitted a great bodily injury enhancement attached to one of two driving under the influence counts. The court imposed sentence on the gross vehicular manslaughter, and the remaining counts were stayed. Prison officials told Gomez his release date would be calculated by applying the fifteen…

View Full Summary