People v. Malchier CA5 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/18/13 P. v. Malchier CA5
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
    publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
    or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    THE PEOPLE,
    F066603
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    (Super. Ct. No. F11907306)
    v.
    SABRINA DESIREE MALCHER,                                                                 OPINION
    Defendant and Appellant.
    THE COURT*
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jon N.
    Kapetan, Judge.
    Tara K. Hoveland, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
    General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and J. Robert
    Jibson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    -ooOoo-
    *        Before Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Franson, J.
    Defendant Sabrina Desiree Malcher contends the trial court erred in refusing to
    award her day-for-day credits. The People concede, and we agree, that defendant was
    entitled to day-for-day credits under the version of Penal Code section 2933,
    subdivision (e)1 that was in effect on the dates defendant committed the crimes. We will
    modify the judgment to award defendant the correct number of presentence credits and
    affirm in all other respects.
    DISCUSSION
    On September 13, 2012, defendant pled no contest to the felonies of identity theft
    (§ 530.5, subd. (a)) and commercial burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (b)) for crimes she
    committed on June 30, 2011, and July 8, 2011. On January 23, 2013, the trial court
    sentenced her to two years in county jail. She requested “accelerated credits” for day-for-
    day credits, but the court declined because she was being sentenced under the
    Realignment Act (Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 482 (Assem. Bill No. 109)) to county jail, rather
    than prison. The trial court awarded her 224 days of credit for actual time served
    (§ 2900.5) and 112 days of conduct credit (§ 4019).
    When defendant committed her crimes in June and July 2011, conduct credits for
    defendants convicted of felonies and sentenced to state prison were governed by
    section 2933, former subdivision (e). (Stats. 2010, ch. 426, § 1.) That version authorized
    day-for-day conduct credits: “Notwithstanding Section 4019 …, a prisoner sentenced to
    the state prison under Section 1170 for whom the sentence is executed shall have one day
    deducted from his or her period of confinement for every day he or she served in a county
    jail … from the date of arrest until state prison credits pursuant to this article are
    applicable to the prisoner.”
    While defendant’s case was pending, the sentencing statutes were amended as part
    of the Realignment Act. As a result, defendant was sentenced to county jail, rather than
    1      All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
    2.
    state prison. Had she gone to prison, she would have been entitled to the additional
    credits under section 2933, former subdivision (e). This postoffense change effected by
    the Realignment Act could not serve to reduce defendant’s credits without violating the
    constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws. (See Weaver v. Graham (1981) 
    450 U.S. 24
    , 31; People v. Nunez (2013) 
    220 Cal.App.4th 1527
     [2013 Cal.App. Lexis 883].)
    Accordingly, we agree with both parties that defendant is entitled to 112 additional
    days of conduct credits.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is modified to award defendant credit for a total of 448 days of
    presentence credit, consisting of 224 days of actual custody and 224 days of conduct
    credit. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to
    prepare a corrected abstract of judgment and send a certified copy to the appropriate
    agencies and entities.
    3.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: F066603

Filed Date: 12/18/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014