P. v. Williams
Filed 6/18/13 P. v. Williams CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
JULIUS DEWAYNE WILLIAMS,
Defendant and
Appellant.
2d Crim. No.
B240934
(Super. Ct. No.
2011036452)
(Ventura
County)
Julius Dewayne Williams
appeals from a judgment after a guilty plea to one count of
and served a prison sentence for each.
(Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b.)
allegations, and sentenced him to a three-year term, to be served in a local
facility pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h)(5).
Williams contends, and
the Attorney General concedes, that he is entitled to day-for-day presentence
conduct credit under the version of section 2933, subdivision (e) that was in
effect on the date he committed the crime.
We modify the judgment to award Williams the correct amount of
presentence credit.
FACTUAL AND
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 22, 2011, Williams used a fictitious
traveler's check to purchase an item.
Between his arrest and his sentencing on April 11, 2012, he was confined for 182 days. The trial court awarded 272 days of
presentence confinement credit, consisting of 182 days of actual custody and 90
days of conduct credit.
DISCUSSION
When Williams committed
his crime (between September 28, 2010
and October 1, 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." It did not apply to prisoners who were required
to register as sex offenders or suffered strike convictions, but it did apply
to Williams. Williams was not required
to register as a sex offender and he had not suffered any serious or violent
felony convictions.
While Williams' case was
pending, the sentencing statutes were amended as part of realignment. (Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 1); Stats. 2011, 1st
Ex. Sess. 2011-2012, ch. 12, § 35.)
The changes applied only prospectively.
(§ 4019, subds. (g) & (h).)
Williams committed his crime before their effective dates. Because of realignment, Williams was not
"sentenced to state prison," within the terms of section 2933, former
subdivision (e). (Stats. 2010, ch 426,
§ 1.) However, that post-offense
change cannot serve to reduce his credits without violating the constitutional
prohibition on ex post facto laws. (See Weaver
v. Graham (1981) 450 U.S. 24, 31.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified
to award appellant credit for 364 days of presentence confinement, consisting
of 182 days of actual custody and 182 days of conduct credit. In all other respects, the judgment is
affirmed. The trial court shall prepare
a corrected abstract of judgment and send a certified copy to the
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
GILBERT,
P.J.
We concur:
YEGAN, J.
PERREN, J.
Nancy
Ayers, Judge
Superior
Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Richard B. Lennon, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris,
Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E.
Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Blythe J. Leszkay, Michael Katz, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
