Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. William David Glenn

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT Yolo


March 28, 2011

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
WILLIAM DAVID GLENN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Super. Ct. No. 093425

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie ,j.

P. v. Glenn CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Defendant William David Glenn contends he is entitled to 58 additional days of conduct credits under the recent amendments to Penal Code*fn1 section 4019. (See In re Kemp (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 252, 255.) Responding to a fiscal emergency in our state, these amendments identify "a class of prisoners [eligible prisoners] deemed safe for early release and, to that end, increase[] the rate at which these prisoners earn conduct credits." (Kemp, at p. 260.)

Defendant's argument and the People's response focus on the alleged retroactivity of section 4019. The dispositive issue, however, is whether defendant is an eligible prisoner entitled to these credits. Finding he is not, we affirm the trial court's order denying him these credits.

"Eligible prisoners are those who were neither required to register as sex offenders, nor were committed for serious felonies (§ 1192.7), nor had been convicted of serious or violent felonies (§ 667.5). (Former § 4019, subds. (b)(2), (c)(2).)" (In re Kemp, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 256, fn. omitted.) Only if a defendant is found to be an eligible prisoner may he be entitled to the increased credits under section 4019.

Here, defendant pled no contest to battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)) and petty theft with a prior theft conviction. The factual basis for his battery plea was the preliminary hearing. According to the testimony at that hearing, defendant "knocked out" the victim and then "repeatedly kicked him in the head." As a result, defendant had to have 30 stitches "to put [his] gum back together to [his] jawbone" and lost one tooth and a "bunch of fillings."

This conduct qualifies as a serious felony within the meaning of section 1192.7. A serious felony includes "any felony in which the defendant personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person, other than an accomplice." (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).) "[T]he element of 'serious bodily injury,' as required for felony battery, is essentially equivalent to or synonymous with 'great bodily injury' for the purpose of a 'serious felony' . . . pursuant to Penal Code section[] . . . 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8)." (People v. Moore (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1868, 1871.) We properly go behind the minimum elements of the offense and consider the entire record of the conviction to determine whether an offense is a serious felony within the meaning of section 1192.7. (Moore, at p. 1871.) Here, the record of conviction we have just recounted demonstrates that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim.*fn2 He is therefore not an eligible prisoner entitled to the additional credits.

DISPOSITION

The order denying defendant's request for additional credits under section 4019 is affirmed.

We concur: NICHOLSON , Acting P.J. DUARTE,J.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.