(Super. Ct. No. 11F04485)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull , Acting P. J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Juan Nelson pleaded no contest to felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594; statutory references that follow are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated) and admitted a strike allegation for a prior criminal threats (§ 422) conviction (§§ 667, subds. (a)-(i), 1170.12, 1192.7, subd. (c)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a stipulated two-year eight-month state prison term, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded 174 days of presentence credit (116 actual and 58 conduct).
On appeal, defendant contends that the prospective application of the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 (Realignment Act) (Stats. 2011, ch. 15) violates his right to equal protection of the law and there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that he could pay the booking and classification fees (Gov. Code, § 29550.2). We affirm the judgment.
We need not set forth the facts of defendant's crime because they are not relevant to the issues he raised on appeal.
Defendant committed his crime on June 20, 2011. He was sentenced on October 14, 2011.
The trial court sentenced defendant under the September 28, 2010, revision of the presentence credit law. Under that version, a defendant with a current or prior serious or violent felony conviction was entitled to two days of conduct credit for every four days of presentence custody. (Former §§ 2933, 4019.) Defendant admitted to a strike allegation based on a prior conviction for criminal threats, a serious felony. (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(38).)
The Realignment Act amended the law, entitling defendants to two days of conduct credits for every two days of presentence custody. (§ 4019, subds. (b), (c), (f).) The award of credits is not reduced by a defendant's prior conviction for a serious or violent felony. This provision applies prospectively to defendants serving presentence incarceration for crimes committed on or after October 1, 2011. (§ 4019, subd. (h).)
Defendant argues that the prospective application of the conduct credit provisions of the Realignment Act violates his right to equal protection under the law. This claim was rejected by the California Supreme Court in a case after the conclusion of briefing. (People v. Lara (2012) ...