Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

The People v. Chuck Gordon Mead

December 18, 2012

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
CHUCK GORDON MEAD, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. SF118143A)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull , J.

P. v. Mead

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Chuck Gordon Mead pleaded no contest to assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); section references that follow are to this code.) In exchange, three enhancing allegations and five related counts were dismissed. That same day, defendant was sentenced to prison for four years. He was awarded 87 days' custody credit and 44 days' conduct credit.

On appeal, defendant contends (1) he is entitled to day-for-day conduct credit because no prior "strike" conviction was proved at trial, and (2) principles of equal protection entitle him to the additional conduct credit. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

The facts of defendant's offense are not at issue and need not be set forth in this opinion.

DISCUSSION

I

Day-for-Day Conduct Credits

Defendant contends he is entitled to day-for-day conduct credit because no prior "strike" conviction was proved at trial.

After briefing in this case was completed, our Supreme Court decided People v. Lara (2012) 54 Cal.4th 896 (Lara), which rejected a contention that "credit-limiting facts [such as a prior strike conviction] must formally be pled and proved." (Id. at p. 906.) Lara explained that the court has "imposed such a requirement only as to facts that define the permissible range of sentencing for an offense by ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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