IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yuba)
September 5, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
RANDOLPH GERALD BROOKE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. CRF11371)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , J.
P. v. Brooke
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Randolph Gerald Brooke pleaded no contest to assault with a deadly weapon (a truck) (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1))*fn1 in exchange for a sentencing lid (the low term of two years in prison). According to the factual basis for the plea, taken from Yuba County Sheriff's Department report No. 1-11-003011, on July 9, 2011, defendant was served an eviction notice from his estranged wife, became enraged, and drove her vehicle off the road with his truck. The trial court sentenced defendant to two years in prison and awarded 159 days of presentence custody credit (109 actual days and 50 conduct days).
On appeal, defendant contends he is entitled to day-for-day conduct credit based on the October 1, 2011 amendment to section 4019 (Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 482). Although the law expressly provides that the change is prospective, applying to those prisoners confined "for a crime committed on or after October 1, 2011" (§ 4019, subd. (h)), defendant argues prospective application violates equal protection.
The California Supreme Court recently indicated otherwise in People v. Lara (S192784, July 19, 2012) 54 Cal.4th 896 (Lara). Citing People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314 (Brown), the Supreme Court concluded in this context that "prisoners who serve their pretrial detention before such a law's effective date, and those who serve their detention thereafter, are not similarly situated with respect to the law's purpose. (Brown, at pp. 328-329.)" (Lara, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 906, fn. 9.)
Thus, because defendant committed his offense on July 9, 2011, he is not entitled to day-for-day credit. The change in the law applies to prisoners confined for a crime committed on or after October 1, 2011. (§ 4019, subd. (h).) Prospective application of this change in the law does not violate equal protection. (Lara, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 906, fn. 9.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BLEASE , Acting P. J. DUARTE , J.